Social Science Why didnt driverless cars pan out?

[Seeds]

It’s really not that far from happening. It depends if the governments allow it.

2016 wants its post back.

 

[The Goon]

It was a stupid idea to begin with. There will always be accidents with it.
You can pay a delivery driver $25 to $30 to drive a car.

Yes there will be accidents, thats unavoidable but doesn't mean it's a bad idea if there are on average less accidents.

I strongly suspect we'll end up sometime in the next 20 years with a lot of the population using subscription service driverless cars, with a reduction in overall traffic. If greed doesn't * it up (and it probably will) we could also end up with a win-win-win: reduced costs for most users; increased profits for manufacturers (provided they are running the subscriptions); stable revenue for government to replace petrol taxes.

 

[Pistol Night]

If your in the car doing nothing you might as well steer the campaigner anyway for peace of mind

 

[Gralin]

Yes there will be accidents, thats unavoidable but doesn't mean it's a bad idea if there are on average less accidents.

I strongly suspect we'll end up sometime in the next 20 years with a lot of the population using subscription service driverless cars, with a reduction in overall traffic. If greed doesn't * it up (and it probably will) we could also end up with a win-win-win: reduced costs for most users; increased profits for manufacturers (provided they are running the subscriptions); stable revenue for government to replace petrol taxes.

in our current society greed will always * it up

 

[Eagle Of Destiny]

Integration is always incredibly difficult and harder than a do-over.

If we built a new city around rapid transport then it would be feasible but there are way too many variables for it to work effectively.

 

[mr bagcroft]

We have way worse problems than worrying about ******* driverless cars.

 

[Seeds]

The benefits are massively overstated. If everyone had a private autonomous vehicle, the roads would grind to a stand-still. (Think about the empty vehicles driving home or parking themselves near busy destinations.). Plus, it would give priority back to pedestrians who would be able to cross the road at any time and bring traffic to a halt (that feature would have to be foolproof for these cars to get approval).

The response to that would be road user charging, which would result in a massive impact on lower-socio economic areas, relative to those who live inner-city have much better PT access and could afford the additional charges.

I'd put my money on drone-flying private vehicles before on-road autonomous vehicles.

With driverless cars people dont own them. They rent them. So there ends up being a lot less built. Like a third as much. No longer need garages to put cars in As the cars are constantly driving.

this only works for urban areas though. Rural not so much.

in any case the tech was fraudulent. It doesnt work.

 

[Grin]

I'm not sure that productivity gains would outway the cost yet. I believe there are some driverless iron ore trains. Not sure how that's worked out. But we don't even have driverless commuter trains yet, let alone trams, busses, trucks or cars.

 

[Gralin]

I'm not sure that productivity gains would outway the cost yet. I believe there are some driverless iron ore trains. Not sure how that's worked out. But we don't even have driverless commuter trains yet, let alone trams, busses, trucks or cars.

i thought fully automated trains were a thing, the easiest of options, travel x distance then stop etc

 

[Gralin]

like i have been on a train in sydney that had no driver on the train

 

[owen87]

I'm not sure that productivity gains would outway the cost yet. I believe there are some driverless iron ore trains. Not sure how that's worked out. But we don't even have driverless commuter trains yet, let alone trams, busses, trucks or cars.

There's heaps around the world, just not in Melbourne. Sydney has trialed some I believe?

Grade 4 is fully automated, no human involvement in driving / opening doors or anything;

List of driverless train systems - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Copenhagen pretty much does their entire metro network, then parts of major cities like Barcelona, Paris, and Rome all have automated trains on some lines.

 

[Faz 2000]

Realistically, some kind of technology should be better at driving than people. Like auto-parking is way better at reverse parallel parking than most humans.

But the issue becomes one of accountability when things go wrong. You can be sure there will still be accidents, but now instead of being the individual driver's fault, it will be Mercedes, or Google, or Tesla, or whoever. I think that breaks the model from a legal/risk/insurance point of view, even IF the technology is good and overall better/less error-prone than people.

 

[Cap]

I always thought driverless cars biggest problem would be people, both in other cars and any where near them.

How did the autonomous trucks go?

 

[Andre]

Realistically, some kind of technology should be better at driving than people. Like auto-parking is way better at reverse parallel parking than most humans.

But the issue becomes one of accountability when things go wrong. You can be sure there will still be accidents, but now instead of being the individual driver's fault, it will be Mercedes, or Google, or Tesla, or whoever. I think that breaks the model from a legal/risk/insurance point of view, even IF the technology is good and overall better/less error-prone than people.

If it's Telsa, Google etc., the price of those lawsuits (if unavoidable accidents), will end up being priced into new car costs. Which is a good thing. At present car manufacturers make cars safe to standards and what consumers want. If those accident costs flow to them, then to keep their prices down and sell more cars, it should result in cars (/other autonomous vehicles) going more the route of planes.

At present, unless it's glaringly bad, car faults are 'well it happened'. Planes, every accident is analysed in detail, to see if a similar one can not occur in the future. With reams of data around driving, plus leading up and accidents, driverless vehicles should continually get safer, to a degree that driven cars will never be able to.

 

[The Passenger]

Without bothering to google I'm pretty sure there are numerous lawsuits involving fatalies and driverless cars.

From 2018

One of the biggest challenges driverless vehicles was always going to face is legal repercussions when fatalities and serious accidents occur.

They could reduce both of these by 50% (or even more) but are still going to face court action for just about every single one.

 

[Ralll]

They are already in use in China and America and probably other countries too.

 

[Speck]

I see the biggest issue being humans ability to accept that accidents will occur, and possibly at no one's direct fault. You can't program for every single scenario.

It will ultimately result in less accidents and safer roads - but if these companies are up to their necks in lawsuits every time an accident happens then

 

[Frank Bunn]

I see the biggest issue being humans ability to accept that accidents will occur, and possibly at no one's direct fault. You can't program for every single scenario.

It's not just about safety. There's practicality too. I was recently in a car park where two cars were blocking each other from passing at a junction. It was resolved by one of them going around on the wrong side of the road. It's an illustration of the difference between real and artificial intelligence. Two self driving cars might have blocked the whole car park for an hour until a 'manual operator' arrived.