Programming the car to always follow the rules has resulted in more minor accidents and zero major accidents. Sounds like a good trade off to me.
Also California requires all accidents to be reported publicly. Compare that number to human driver accidents that don’t have that level of disclosure and you have an apples to oranges comparison which makes autonomous cars look much worse.
Human drivers should’ve seen that coming and should’ve been able to avoid being involved in those losses. The article clearly stated “Driverless vehicles have never been at fault” so the fault for those losses has always rested with the human driver, not the autonomous vehicle(s).
Again, missing his point and going after a cliche line that doesn’t disprove his point.
“Not at Fault
Turns out, though, their accident rates are twice as high as for regular cars, according to a study by the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Driverless vehicles have never been at fault, the study found: They’re usually hit from behind in slow-speed crashes by inattentive or aggressive humans unaccustomed to machine motorists that always follow the rules and proceed with caution.”
Let’s focus first on this: “Turns out, though, their accident rates are twice as high as for regular cars”
Then On this:
“They’re usually hit from behind in slow-speed crashes by inattentive or aggressive humans unaccustomed to machine motorists that always follow the rules and proceed with caution.”
Then compare to this:
“The Caddy performed perfectly, except when it had to merge onto I-395 South and swing across three lanes of traffic in 150 yards (137 meters) to head toward the Pentagon. The car’s cameras and laser sensors detected traffic in a 360-degree view but didn’t know how to trust that drivers would make room in the ceaseless flow, so the human minder had to take control to complete the maneuver”
Should I say “reading comprehension” Rosenblatt? Or is it only Ron that can say that and sound like a rational thinking man?
Why do I even have to explain why
“Driverless cars having accidents? Gee, who could have seen that coming? Duh.”
Considering the above is a completely rational statement, and you focusing supposedly who is at fault, is irrelevant?
So if the drivers as a whole are the issue, why are the drivers themselves who are aggressive not crashing into each other whereas the cars are? The example listed provides a point that you need to pay attention to. The example was the car didn’t know to trust the vehicles would make room. It emphasized aggressive drivers. Ever gone above 60 to pass someone or get into a lane? Ever had to dip below what the supposed safe speed limit is in order to get into a lane only to radically have to speed up again because traffic come to a sudden and non predictable stop?
If human drivers are “breaking laws” and are not crashing into at fault drivers, and the vehicles are crashing into the at fault drivers that are AI driven, does this not mean the non at fault driver is crashing at a lesser rate than the non at fault computer? The rate is twice the amount. We can’t of course that assume the scenarios are equal but we can make a pretty clear guess based on the rate of crashes, which is all that matters. You’re trying to say that the non at fault humans that never crashed are causing the AI to crash. That’s a stretch Rosenblatt. If the crash rate is higher your AI isn’t a good driver. Have you taken a defensive driving course? The AI needs to employ techniques to make sure it doesn’t crash. The goal isn’t to drive exactly 60 mph, it’s to avoid the vehicles on the road. If the goal is to drive exactly 60 mph, what if it has to break a law to I don’t know, suddenly stop to avoid hitting a small child? That is breaking the law. The child is at fault for walking in the freeway aren’t they? The computer needs to factor safety, not laws.
The statement “Driverless cars having accidents? Gee, who could have seen that coming? Duh.” doesn’t direct fault, so when you claim that fault linked to it, that is your FAULT (ha ha ha, punny!) in judgement of comparison.
I have noticed you do this a lot. One line interpretations that you apply to other people’s arguments to make them incorrect.
Bob – I will ignore all your “knock it off” related comments because it only distracts us from having a useful dialogue on this matter. As I will point out below, you are wrong telling me what I’m trying to say – as I’ve asked you 12 times already, please refrain from telling me what I am saying. That said, let me answer your questions:
“So if the drivers as a whole are the issue, why are the drivers themselves who are aggressive not crashing into each other whereas the cars are?”
The drivers are the issue – that is what I’m trying to say! Every driver needs to show proper lookout and take reasonable avoidance actions to avoid being involved in a loss. It doesn’t matter if the other vehicle is driven by a person or a computer – the actions of the human drivers showing improper lookout and not being able to take emergency avoidance actions to avoid being involved in a loss simply means the humans have contributed to the accident. And if the human rear ends an AI car, 100% liability would rest with the human no matter why the lead vehicle had to come to a stop. This is simply basic auto liability.
“You’re trying to say that the non at fault humans that never crashed are causing the AI to crash.”
No no no no no. I am not saying that. I am saying the AT-FAULT humans are the ones causing crashes with AI vehicles, and that the AI vehicles haven’t been found to hold 50% or more liability for any loss.
If the AI stops short for ANY reason (say, a kid runs out into the street) and the AI car is rear-ended by a human, do you agree the human is at-fault?
“If the goal is to drive exactly 60 mph, what if it has to break a law to I don’t know, suddenly stop to avoid hitting a small child? That is breaking the law.”
A) The goal isn’t to drive the speed limit. The goal of driverless vehicles is to increase safety. Regardless, you’re wrong – that maneuver is 100% legal. Every driver has to travel at a reasonable speed for weather & road conditions. Say it’s snowing, driving 20MPH in a 60MPH zone is 100% legal. Say you have to slam on your breaks and come to a stop because a disabled vehicle is in the road and you’re going to crash into it. Going 0MPH in a 60MPH zone would be 100% legal.
“If you have to stop on the highway because The child is at fault for walking in the freeway aren’t they?”
Yes, but the kid wouldn’t be 100% liable though! There would be comparative negligence on both the child and the vehicle that rear-ended the car that had to stop because of the kid. Again – basic auto insurance here: if you’re traveling too closely to the vehicle in front of you and you can’t stop without rear-ending them, it doesn’t matter why the other car stopped – you are the majority at fault for that loss.
Bob, I see you are still trying to reason with Rosenblatt, mostly in vain.
Here is another thought that no one pays attention to. What if a determined Terrorist gains access to a driverless car or truck, loads them up with high explosive and programs it to crash into a public function, a building or an area with a lot of people. Just think of the destruction and the Terrorist doesn’t even have to be in the area. ISIS can easily do such a thing since they are ahead of the authorities at every turn.
Agent – please explain how bob’s attempt at reasoning with me is mostly in vain. I answered every single one of his questions – what else was I supposed to do to keep this conversation on-topic and moving forward?
Bob, both you and Rosenblatt should attempt to keep your posts shorter. We don’t need sermons and multi paragraph posts to make a point. Don’t encourage him by telling him to knock it off. That only spurs him on with his drivel.
Nobody is forcing you to read our posts, Agent. If you can’t spend 2 minutes to read and comprehend a multi-paragraph multi-faceted comment, just don’t bother reading the post in the first place!
Mr. Mister – why do you assume that computer driver accidents are reported at greater frequency? You just said CD accidents are more likely to be minor. Also, wouldn’t the driver of a CD vehicle, who’s very job is to avoid accidents, have an incentive to not report it to save his job or avoid bad PR?
CD vehicles are involved in fewer major accidents because there is a redundant system, which ordinary cars do not have. Frankly, I would expect CD vehicles to have fewer accidents overall unless the drivers are distracted.
So any collision at any speed needs to be turned it to regulators, when human drivers might just say ‘don’t worry about it’ or ‘let’s not get the insurance company involved in this one.’ That’s where the apples to oranges comes in.
I’m confused by your last sentence. Why would it matter if the driver is distracted if the autonomous car is the one driving? Remember, we’re talking autonomous ie complete control of the car, not just a hazard avoidance alarm for a human driver.
give me a gold star – I said from the very start that trying to blend driverless cars that always abide by proper distances, speeds, and lane changes were going to cause major conflicts in heavy traffic. if you have either 100% one or the other it will work, but I can’t see how you can blend them. I can imagine what a driverless does when a driver dodges in front of it just 15 feet away. major brake up; the guys behind better be ready. if you think congestion is bad now, just wait until you have a large volume of “legal” cars in the mix.
Good one steve. Why have driverless cars if we have 100 million drivers of autos on the road, many of them cell addicts texting while driving or speeding or cutting in and out of traffic, failing to yield right of way, running red lights, drunk or high on marijuana or meth? The potential for large chain reaction accidents will be high when the driverless car slows down and all the humans will pile right into it.
Are you are arguing against driverless cars because humans currently show improper lookout while driving? Isn’t that the main reason we need driverless cars, so there won’t be any more people driving who don’t obey the laws (e.g. cell use, obeying signals, showing proper lookout & avoidance actions, driving while impaired)?
What’s the difference between a driverless car stopping short or a human driver stopping short as it relates to chain-reaction accidents?
Shouldn’t all drivers (human & autonomous) follow at a safe distance to ensure their car can stop without rear-ending another vehicle no matter what the lead vehicle does?
He is the dumbest person I have ever encountered, of course he is making that argument, because it is a stupid argument to make, and is another way to basically yell, “You young punks get off my yard” about a new technology that didn’t exist when he was a kid.
Steve,
This is exactly what I was going to say, if we have 100% of the driverless cars obeying all the rules, then there wouldn’t be the accident issue….Ever.
The accidents are caused by humans who almost never follow “ALL” the rules at the same time.
James – I am pretty much on the same page as you. As long as I am physically/mentally capable of driving safely, I will drive my own car. But, in about 30 years when I become a driving hazard, I look forward to having a car that can drive me where I need to go.
Humans already should be showing proper lookout and take reasonable avoidance actions while driving. What does it matter if the car in front of them is driven by a person or machine? The human driver still needs to ensure they don’t travel too close and always ‘leave themselves an out’ regardless of who is in control of the other vehicle.
Idealistically why does it matter, the driver needs to ensure they don’t travel too close. And yes they do. However:
A human will make a mistake, when you factor in millions of miles of driving. And when one car makes a mistake another car often makes a mistake trying to avoid the person who made the mistake. Let’s say they are about to miss their exit, and they make very sudden and quick changes. The people around adjust as needed. If the AI cannot adjust as needed in the name of the concept of “remaining within parameters”, it shouldn’t be on the road. We aren’t switching to fully AI drive cars, nor should we. Humans take proper care and will always have an error factor, but will also always have adaptability based on conditions.
Humans who don’t in actuality crash into that car (which is what the study above covers) are more capable than the AI who in actuality do.
Whether or not people should idealistically show total care, doesn’t affect that they never will completely.
steve, I agree that blending autonomous cautious driving in a highway full of risky, aggressive driving will cause exactly that same problem that granny in the slow lane does (but with better eyesight, response time, heck everything).
However, I don’t think the answer to this is to keep those law abiding/prudent driving vehicles away. The answer I think is to have laws catch up with the safe speed of highways (rather than artificially low limits that the police can exploit as a cash cow).
reality, you are right. The only way driverless cars will catch on is if they are relegated to special lanes on freeways, highways. Perhaps the politicians will spend another $500 Billion to upgrade just so a few thousand can benefit. Otherwise, everyday drivers will continue to do their thing disobeying traffic laws and running over people. I have a feeling it will be many, many years before we enter the George Jetson era.
the Jetson’s had flying vehicles ***operated by humans*** using a joystick. they never had autonomous vehicles, which is what this article is about. get your facts straight
There are 18-wheelers operating without human driver involvement on major highways without designated autonomous lanes right now. The future is already here, Agent!
Good riddance I say. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If drivers cannot avoid a car that is driving properly and legally let them get a ticket. If they do it frequently they will lose their license and be off the road.
The “enforcer” on the road is such at the peril of its occupants.
“Do-gooders”, be they be man or machine don’t always get the best outcomes, now do they? One wonders how the driverless car would do in Italy, where nobody obeys any of the traffic laws, pardon the stereotype.
vox, perhaps all drivers should just stay at home and work out of there instead of chancing driving to work. That should keep the accidents down, right? At the rate we are going with people dropping out of the workforce and going on disability, they can just stay home, watch the View, download apps and live off the working folks.
This is a good example of the flaw in the thinking and worldview of utopian social engineers, which by the way, is what these “engineers” riding around in driverless vehicles really are. For them, the ardent belief is that every aspect of life can be explained with an algorithm, and if that algorithm is applied by enough “smart” people to enough “smart” machinery, we will some day achieve nirvana. Meanwhile, our humanity slowly retreats into the background shadows of A Brave New World.
As a species, humans have always striven to improve their lives and the lives of future generations. What exactly is wrong with making driving safer, more efficient, and reducing costs?
The day we stop looking to innovate in an effort to reach utopia, is the day we cease to be human.
I read an article like this and it makes me take all these other articles and accident statistics with a grain of salt. Every time I read an article about speed, alcohol, etc. being the cause of X number of accidents, it’s usually not true. Was it present or possibly a contributing cause of an accident? Perhaps. Was it THE cause of an accident? In many cases not. Same applies here. It’s the other drivers causing all these accidents, not the driverless cars. The one area where I might tweak the programming is in merging. Perhaps a temporary increase in speed above the limit by a certain amount (maybe 5-10%) might be called for.
Dave, no matter what the speed limit is, drivers will drive 5-10 MPH faster. I was driving on the Interstate yesterday and doing the posted limit of 75MPH and they were passing me like I was sitting still.
Mostly because speed limits are set too low. I get all sorts of car magazines and all research shows the safest speed limit is the 85th percentile. Which is the speed at which given their own way, 85% of the people drive slower and 15% drive faster. Most speed limits are arbitrarily fixed and at something between 40-60%. Speed contributes to the severity of an accident, but most accidents are caused by other issues or conditions.
Dave, back in the Nixon days, they set the national speed limit at 55 MPH due to the energy crisis and to improve mileage. They also allowed right turns at red lights after stopping to save gasoline. That day passed and speed limits have gradually gotten higher both on interstates and two lane roads. People will drive faster than any posted speed limit. I disagree with your opinion on only 15% will drive faster and 85% slower. Spend some time on the Interstate and you will see what I mean. I passed about 15% going slower than the speed limit and 85% passed me and I was set right on the 75 MPH. It was amazing.
I agree! Perhaps, driverless cars should also somehow be able to detect proximity of a vehicle behind it, and also make judgment calls based on this information. However, I don’t see how this could be avoided if the vehicle behind is following too closely- I think the dedicated lane for driverless cars is also a great idea.
Trust me, todays edition of Property Casualty.com’s enewsletter has a very good article- What’s so scary about Driverless Cars. It should give most sane people pause about these autos. I did say most sane people, not like some on this blog.
How many times have we seen our parent(s) or even ourselves, challenged by circumstances of driving when they perhaps shouldn’t be driving?
As both a child of an aging father and the parent of two children who survived driving as teens, and more importantly as a person who has survived potential harm or injury just by the grace of God, I am confident in saying that not everyone SHOULD drive. Of course taxi cabs and Uber are logical in some cases, but not mandatory in all.
Reality, there is no doubt that at a certain age when eyesight, hearing and reflexes are an issue, some elderly people shouldn’t be driving, however we could say the same thing about distracted cell users or habitual drinkers or drug users that also shouldn’t be driving. They are a menace on the driving populace and cause many more bad accidents than the elderly crowd. As an agent, I see it all the time.
No, it was just a word used in a posting by Rosenblatt in one of his fancy word parsing replies. He was trying to show us how smart he was and everyone was scratching their heads asking themselves, what in the h – – – is he talking about? If you want to ask him what he meant, he will give you 5 or 6 paragraphs of nothing.
Agent insulted me out of the blue for no reason? Guess he’s back to normal. “Thanks” for putting words in my mouth and (incorrectly, as usual) telling someone why I posted what I did.
Jack, if you want to know why I used that word in a reply to Agent, feel free to ask and I’ll be glad to explain. Otherwise, I am refusing to feed the troll right now.
Programming the car to always follow the rules has resulted in more minor accidents and zero major accidents. Sounds like a good trade off to me.
Also California requires all accidents to be reported publicly. Compare that number to human driver accidents that don’t have that level of disclosure and you have an apples to oranges comparison which makes autonomous cars look much worse.
Driverless cars having accidents? Gee, who could have seen that coming? Duh.
Human drivers should’ve seen that coming and should’ve been able to avoid being involved in those losses. The article clearly stated “Driverless vehicles have never been at fault” so the fault for those losses has always rested with the human driver, not the autonomous vehicle(s).
you gotta read the article James
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Bob – I will ignore all your “knock it off” related comments because it only distracts us from having a useful dialogue on this matter. As I will point out below, you are wrong telling me what I’m trying to say – as I’ve asked you 12 times already, please refrain from telling me what I am saying. That said, let me answer your questions:
“So if the drivers as a whole are the issue, why are the drivers themselves who are aggressive not crashing into each other whereas the cars are?”
The drivers are the issue – that is what I’m trying to say! Every driver needs to show proper lookout and take reasonable avoidance actions to avoid being involved in a loss. It doesn’t matter if the other vehicle is driven by a person or a computer – the actions of the human drivers showing improper lookout and not being able to take emergency avoidance actions to avoid being involved in a loss simply means the humans have contributed to the accident. And if the human rear ends an AI car, 100% liability would rest with the human no matter why the lead vehicle had to come to a stop. This is simply basic auto liability.
“You’re trying to say that the non at fault humans that never crashed are causing the AI to crash.”
No no no no no. I am not saying that. I am saying the AT-FAULT humans are the ones causing crashes with AI vehicles, and that the AI vehicles haven’t been found to hold 50% or more liability for any loss.
If the AI stops short for ANY reason (say, a kid runs out into the street) and the AI car is rear-ended by a human, do you agree the human is at-fault?
“If the goal is to drive exactly 60 mph, what if it has to break a law to I don’t know, suddenly stop to avoid hitting a small child? That is breaking the law.”
A) The goal isn’t to drive the speed limit. The goal of driverless vehicles is to increase safety. Regardless, you’re wrong – that maneuver is 100% legal. Every driver has to travel at a reasonable speed for weather & road conditions. Say it’s snowing, driving 20MPH in a 60MPH zone is 100% legal. Say you have to slam on your breaks and come to a stop because a disabled vehicle is in the road and you’re going to crash into it. Going 0MPH in a 60MPH zone would be 100% legal.
“If you have to stop on the highway because The child is at fault for walking in the freeway aren’t they?”
Yes, but the kid wouldn’t be 100% liable though! There would be comparative negligence on both the child and the vehicle that rear-ended the car that had to stop because of the kid. Again – basic auto insurance here: if you’re traveling too closely to the vehicle in front of you and you can’t stop without rear-ending them, it doesn’t matter why the other car stopped – you are the majority at fault for that loss.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Agent – please explain how bob’s attempt at reasoning with me is mostly in vain. I answered every single one of his questions – what else was I supposed to do to keep this conversation on-topic and moving forward?
Bob, both you and Rosenblatt should attempt to keep your posts shorter. We don’t need sermons and multi paragraph posts to make a point. Don’t encourage him by telling him to knock it off. That only spurs him on with his drivel.
Nobody is forcing you to read our posts, Agent. If you can’t spend 2 minutes to read and comprehend a multi-paragraph multi-faceted comment, just don’t bother reading the post in the first place!
Thank you Bob, i didn’t have time to be as erudite as you, not to mention your thoughtfulness.
SCHADENFREUDE!
Mr. Mister – why do you assume that computer driver accidents are reported at greater frequency? You just said CD accidents are more likely to be minor. Also, wouldn’t the driver of a CD vehicle, who’s very job is to avoid accidents, have an incentive to not report it to save his job or avoid bad PR?
CD vehicles are involved in fewer major accidents because there is a redundant system, which ordinary cars do not have. Frankly, I would expect CD vehicles to have fewer accidents overall unless the drivers are distracted.
Adam: why do you assume that computer driver accidents are reported at greater frequency?
California Law states that every single accident be reported when an autonomous car is involved.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing
So any collision at any speed needs to be turned it to regulators, when human drivers might just say ‘don’t worry about it’ or ‘let’s not get the insurance company involved in this one.’ That’s where the apples to oranges comes in.
I’m confused by your last sentence. Why would it matter if the driver is distracted if the autonomous car is the one driving? Remember, we’re talking autonomous ie complete control of the car, not just a hazard avoidance alarm for a human driver.
give me a gold star – I said from the very start that trying to blend driverless cars that always abide by proper distances, speeds, and lane changes were going to cause major conflicts in heavy traffic. if you have either 100% one or the other it will work, but I can’t see how you can blend them. I can imagine what a driverless does when a driver dodges in front of it just 15 feet away. major brake up; the guys behind better be ready. if you think congestion is bad now, just wait until you have a large volume of “legal” cars in the mix.
Good one steve. Why have driverless cars if we have 100 million drivers of autos on the road, many of them cell addicts texting while driving or speeding or cutting in and out of traffic, failing to yield right of way, running red lights, drunk or high on marijuana or meth? The potential for large chain reaction accidents will be high when the driverless car slows down and all the humans will pile right into it.
Are you are arguing against driverless cars because humans currently show improper lookout while driving? Isn’t that the main reason we need driverless cars, so there won’t be any more people driving who don’t obey the laws (e.g. cell use, obeying signals, showing proper lookout & avoidance actions, driving while impaired)?
What’s the difference between a driverless car stopping short or a human driver stopping short as it relates to chain-reaction accidents?
Shouldn’t all drivers (human & autonomous) follow at a safe distance to ensure their car can stop without rear-ending another vehicle no matter what the lead vehicle does?
He is the dumbest person I have ever encountered, of course he is making that argument, because it is a stupid argument to make, and is another way to basically yell, “You young punks get off my yard” about a new technology that didn’t exist when he was a kid.
As I read the comments on IJ articles, the incoherent, misinformed ramblings of the imbecile “Agent” often remind me of Mortimer Snerd.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Steve,
This is exactly what I was going to say, if we have 100% of the driverless cars obeying all the rules, then there wouldn’t be the accident issue….Ever.
The accidents are caused by humans who almost never follow “ALL” the rules at the same time.
But that will not happen in the next 100 years–people buy cars because they want to have control of their transportation.
James – I am pretty much on the same page as you. As long as I am physically/mentally capable of driving safely, I will drive my own car. But, in about 30 years when I become a driving hazard, I look forward to having a car that can drive me where I need to go.
Humans already should be showing proper lookout and take reasonable avoidance actions while driving. What does it matter if the car in front of them is driven by a person or machine? The human driver still needs to ensure they don’t travel too close and always ‘leave themselves an out’ regardless of who is in control of the other vehicle.
Idealistically why does it matter, the driver needs to ensure they don’t travel too close. And yes they do. However:
A human will make a mistake, when you factor in millions of miles of driving. And when one car makes a mistake another car often makes a mistake trying to avoid the person who made the mistake. Let’s say they are about to miss their exit, and they make very sudden and quick changes. The people around adjust as needed. If the AI cannot adjust as needed in the name of the concept of “remaining within parameters”, it shouldn’t be on the road. We aren’t switching to fully AI drive cars, nor should we. Humans take proper care and will always have an error factor, but will also always have adaptability based on conditions.
Humans who don’t in actuality crash into that car (which is what the study above covers) are more capable than the AI who in actuality do.
Whether or not people should idealistically show total care, doesn’t affect that they never will completely.
This means an adaptive driver is required.
steve, I agree that blending autonomous cautious driving in a highway full of risky, aggressive driving will cause exactly that same problem that granny in the slow lane does (but with better eyesight, response time, heck everything).
However, I don’t think the answer to this is to keep those law abiding/prudent driving vehicles away. The answer I think is to have laws catch up with the safe speed of highways (rather than artificially low limits that the police can exploit as a cash cow).
http://www.sehinc.com/news/truth-about-speed-limits-explained-engineer
The title is a bit misleading…it should read human accidents pile up as driverless cars obey traffic laws
One of the best articles that I have read on the driverless car issue
Sounds like until the ratio of CD / HD is reversed, we need dedicated driverless lanes, just like HOV lanes only smarter.
reality, you are right. The only way driverless cars will catch on is if they are relegated to special lanes on freeways, highways. Perhaps the politicians will spend another $500 Billion to upgrade just so a few thousand can benefit. Otherwise, everyday drivers will continue to do their thing disobeying traffic laws and running over people. I have a feeling it will be many, many years before we enter the George Jetson era.
the Jetson’s had flying vehicles ***operated by humans*** using a joystick. they never had autonomous vehicles, which is what this article is about. get your facts straight
There are 18-wheelers operating without human driver involvement on major highways without designated autonomous lanes right now. The future is already here, Agent!
Schadenfreude!
Good riddance I say. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If drivers cannot avoid a car that is driving properly and legally let them get a ticket. If they do it frequently they will lose their license and be off the road.
The “enforcer” on the road is such at the peril of its occupants.
“Do-gooders”, be they be man or machine don’t always get the best outcomes, now do they? One wonders how the driverless car would do in Italy, where nobody obeys any of the traffic laws, pardon the stereotype.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I think I liked that part the best. Just who (whom?) do they cite? Maybe a rhetorical question.
This is a good example of the flaw in the thinking and worldview of utopian social engineers, which by the way, is what these “engineers” riding around in driverless vehicles really are. For them, the ardent belief is that every aspect of life can be explained with an algorithm, and if that algorithm is applied by enough “smart” people to enough “smart” machinery, we will some day achieve nirvana. Meanwhile, our humanity slowly retreats into the background shadows of A Brave New World.
Hawkeye, I think you said it best. Besides, if this eventually leads to lower premiums, it will hurt agents AND underwriters.
As a species, humans have always striven to improve their lives and the lives of future generations. What exactly is wrong with making driving safer, more efficient, and reducing costs?
The day we stop looking to innovate in an effort to reach utopia, is the day we cease to be human.
I read an article like this and it makes me take all these other articles and accident statistics with a grain of salt. Every time I read an article about speed, alcohol, etc. being the cause of X number of accidents, it’s usually not true. Was it present or possibly a contributing cause of an accident? Perhaps. Was it THE cause of an accident? In many cases not. Same applies here. It’s the other drivers causing all these accidents, not the driverless cars. The one area where I might tweak the programming is in merging. Perhaps a temporary increase in speed above the limit by a certain amount (maybe 5-10%) might be called for.
Dave, no matter what the speed limit is, drivers will drive 5-10 MPH faster. I was driving on the Interstate yesterday and doing the posted limit of 75MPH and they were passing me like I was sitting still.
Mostly because speed limits are set too low. I get all sorts of car magazines and all research shows the safest speed limit is the 85th percentile. Which is the speed at which given their own way, 85% of the people drive slower and 15% drive faster. Most speed limits are arbitrarily fixed and at something between 40-60%. Speed contributes to the severity of an accident, but most accidents are caused by other issues or conditions.
Dave, back in the Nixon days, they set the national speed limit at 55 MPH due to the energy crisis and to improve mileage. They also allowed right turns at red lights after stopping to save gasoline. That day passed and speed limits have gradually gotten higher both on interstates and two lane roads. People will drive faster than any posted speed limit. I disagree with your opinion on only 15% will drive faster and 85% slower. Spend some time on the Interstate and you will see what I mean. I passed about 15% going slower than the speed limit and 85% passed me and I was set right on the 75 MPH. It was amazing.
I agree! Perhaps, driverless cars should also somehow be able to detect proximity of a vehicle behind it, and also make judgment calls based on this information. However, I don’t see how this could be avoided if the vehicle behind is following too closely- I think the dedicated lane for driverless cars is also a great idea.
Have we, as a people, really gotten so freaking lazy, that we can’t even drive our own cars?????
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Ron is right. It’s more about safety than laziness. Ultimately these self driving cars will prove more safe than those driven by humans.
Trust me, todays edition of Property Casualty.com’s enewsletter has a very good article- What’s so scary about Driverless Cars. It should give most sane people pause about these autos. I did say most sane people, not like some on this blog.
How many times have we seen our parent(s) or even ourselves, challenged by circumstances of driving when they perhaps shouldn’t be driving?
As both a child of an aging father and the parent of two children who survived driving as teens, and more importantly as a person who has survived potential harm or injury just by the grace of God, I am confident in saying that not everyone SHOULD drive. Of course taxi cabs and Uber are logical in some cases, but not mandatory in all.
Reality, there is no doubt that at a certain age when eyesight, hearing and reflexes are an issue, some elderly people shouldn’t be driving, however we could say the same thing about distracted cell users or habitual drinkers or drug users that also shouldn’t be driving. They are a menace on the driving populace and cause many more bad accidents than the elderly crowd. As an agent, I see it all the time.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Schadenfreude!
It’s official, Agent has completely lost it.
Maybe he can be Donald Trumps’s running mate.
Schadenfreude!
Are you assuming it is the real Agent with the Schadenfreude comments? I’m not so sure.
CL PM,
It would not surprise me. He has come across as an irrational person to me.
those posts do not insult a whole class of people, race, age group, religious beliefs, political affiliation, etc. – I vote that it is not Agent.
Was “Schadenfreude” one of the words on Sesame Street today?
No, it was just a word used in a posting by Rosenblatt in one of his fancy word parsing replies. He was trying to show us how smart he was and everyone was scratching their heads asking themselves, what in the h – – – is he talking about? If you want to ask him what he meant, he will give you 5 or 6 paragraphs of nothing.
Agent insulted me out of the blue for no reason? Guess he’s back to normal. “Thanks” for putting words in my mouth and (incorrectly, as usual) telling someone why I posted what I did.
Jack, if you want to know why I used that word in a reply to Agent, feel free to ask and I’ll be glad to explain. Otherwise, I am refusing to feed the troll right now.
SHADENFREUDE!
failed trolling attempt #8