Autonomous cars aren't perfect, but how safe must they be?

Burning Bush is why self-driving cars have had accidents - millions of miles driven and a crazy human driver crashes into them.

Also, BB, remember that autonomous cars will have people in them. Some of whom might be drunk and have some form of weaponry. And they can switch the car from autonomous to manual. Just a thought.

Burning Bush.

Bad Idea, the production models will be loaded with digital drive recorders, camera, sensors and black boxes, maybe even be able to contact the police of any 'accidents' automatically.

Google wants to make cars available to the public around the end of 2019, assuming its data shows the time is right for deployment. - U.S. traffic deaths have declined steadily for most of the past decade, from 43,510 in 2005 to 32,675 in 2014 - article

Google's 'driverless car costs $150,000.00, including the $70,000.00 laser radar system to map the traffic around the car.

Good luck with that. A car too expensive for anyone who might benefit from it. A $150,000 toy for special roads, not yet built. A wasteful promise of safety and convenience that is in its infancy. The same investment could provide real world jobs for professional drivers and accomplish the same safety and service goals.

Here, a warning. Hackers worked out how to trip pace-makers in humans, killing them. How difficult would it be to have the same trip to kill violate the "safety" of the driverless car?

Driverless is a pipe-dream. The same costs would provide breathalyzer interlocks on all cars and zero distraction driving means turning off cell phones while the car is in motion. That fix is as easy as a program that looks at the accelerometer and a proximity steering wheel sensor.

So, driverless? How about better, safer drivers. So far that's the proven way traffic deaths are being reduced and stiff penalties are finishing off the stragglers. Cruel but true, driverless is a hand in the pocket promising not to lift your wallet.

In 50 years, people are going to look back on the paranoia people had about self-driving cars, and think "how quaint". Kind of like when we read back about people's worries about TV, or the internet or whatever, when they were first coming out.

Self-driving cars are coming, whether anyone likes it or not. Too much money has been invested for them to back off now.

Burning Bush, you're wrong about the defensiveness of automated pilots. They still have to move at 50kmh and they'll still crash into you if you don't respect the rules of the road. Physics is a bitch...

This technology is definitely coming, and will happen for trucking and taxis first. An always-on robot driver will be worth two to three regular truck drivers, so even $150,000 won't be much. The payback period will be very short in commercial terms.

Once introduced in trucks etc., the cost will come down to something an increasing number of regular people can afford in cars. For an old person living alone in the countryside, self driving could mean the huge difference between being mostly housebound and having an active life. A benefit that big will dwarf the current concerns about who is liable for accidents or about hacking.

Burning BushMar. 21, 2016 - 03:19PM JST

Hence I'll cut them off on a whim, and who cares if they have cameras, cutting off is not a crime.

I do not know where you live but in the UK it is a crime called dangerous driving.

In about a dozen other crashes on city streets, Google blamed the human driver of the other vehicle.

and in the police report, who was to blame ?

The human figures were increased to include an estimate of minor crashes that weren’t reported to police.

The study also didn’t include potential crashes that were avoided when human backup drivers took control**.

Tipping the figures into their favor.

When, not if, some one is killed by an auto car that develops a fault who is responsible ?

1) The passenger of the car.

2) The company who built the car.

3) The person who wrote the program that controls the car.

4) The company who's part (supplied to the car manufacturer) failed.

The is one big legal problem.

Who is responsible for when an auto car goes wrong and therefore responsible for any and all claim payouts.

The cost benefit analysis of driverless cars illustrated in the article.

Research: "A Virginia Tech University study commissioned by Google found that the company’s autonomous cars crashed 3.2 times per million miles compared with 4.2 times for human drivers."

Of course, Google paid for the research, but 3.2 vs. 4.2 per million miles shows driverless is a highly specialized and strongly technology dependent solution compared with a one crash per million mile benefit.

In striking contrast from the article: "“We should be concerned about automated vehicles,” says Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies the technology. “But we should be terrified about today’s drivers.”

Terrified sounds like overselling, as Mr. Smith, Law Professor, seems a bit hysterical to start with and given the numbers from Google paid research show nearly no benefit. (Scare and sell is an ever popular technique.)

When reviewing the numbers:

"According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, the average American spends around $30,000 on a new car or light truck. In contrast, Interest.com’s 2013 Car Affordability Study says that the average American can only afford to spend $20,806 on a car."

*"The featured (Google) Prius, which starts at around $24,000, is optioned up with a $75,000 to $80,000 Velodyne LIDAR system, visual and radar sensors estimated to cost about $10,000, and a nearly $200,000 GPS array. At $320,000, that’s an exclusive purchase, and well above the mean cost of a car, truck or SUV."

source: http://www.fastcompany.com/3025722/will-you-ever-be-able-to-afford-a-self-driving-car

Yes, yes, cost will come down with implimentation. That is a given. But at what cost and what other missed opportunities?

"The US government has pledged $4 billion (£2.8 billion) towards improving autonomous vehicles and providing the infrastructure to support them."

source: http://www.dezeen.com/2016/01/19/usa-department-of-transportation-plan-increase-driverless-cars-funding-relax-regulations/

Now, imagine the four billion used to help the isolated grandma, grandpa or other limited individuals.

Even in broad calculation: $4B among 50 States yields $80M per or 2,285 drivers at $35K/yr, 114,250 new jobs. Obviously, these resources could be portioned to actual needs.

Yes, the vechicles and support take half away and suggest actual 1,142 drivers for the needy/disabled or some fewer total as these drivers would likely have coordination and supervisors. Maybe 80,000 total jobs from the $4B with appropriate fleet of vechicles.

Is it wise to invest in a highly vulnerable transportation system? *(eg: unintended acceleration failures and GM's ignition switch debacle.)

If the sales pitch is poor gammy isolated at home or busy commuter needs a driver, would a thousand drivers available to fill legitimate needs be a better solution? No one has said gammy rides for free and busy commuter would still have to have a job that pays for a $100K driverless ride?

Driverless doesn't merit the $4B gift to Google and the cost benefit of driverless is highly suspect.

Instead of waiting twenty years why not help gammy now and, more importantly, those ready to work in the new demands of the States aging population? (Honestly, driverless is a snake oil salesman's dream.)

I'm with you Burning Bush...

I strip away the old debris That hides a shining car A brilliant red Barchetta From a better vanished time I fire up the willing engine Responding with a roar Tires spitting gravel I commit my weekly crime...

"Robot drivers won't be able to take revenge. Hence I'll cut them off on a whim, and who cares if they have cameras, cutting off is not a crime. And as for the helpless occupants of the robot vehicle who constantly get jostled around the car as I cut them off... too bad," - comments

Two votes for homicidal maniacs?

Driverless is a scam.

The four billion gift to Google for a technology too expensive to implement and too wasteful to justify in any form of analysis.