I have the right to drive as long as I have a license in my hand and have the proven ability to drive safely. I will not let that right be taken away by an autonomous car.


Now you're just getting into semantics. The vast majority of transportation that occurs in daily life is handled by personal automobiles. Yes, if you go by over-all mileage, it may in fact be held by planes or trains or ships, but those are operated by a very small amount of people, whereas there are, in the U.S. alone, literally what..100million drivers? 200million drivers? Worldwide it is in the billions. That makes it the de-facto standard and most widespread form of transportation. Those hundreds of millions in the U.S. and the billions worldwide are unlikely to allow their governments to take away their ability to drive. Sure there will probably be exceptions(I can imagine Japan being one of them, maybe China, maybe not though), but the vast majority of people will stand against something like this from happening, and it will be people like yourself that are in the minority advocating for the autonomous cars.

Except traffic lights aren't the only thing automated. Cars are already partially automated (at least the more expensive ones), and fully automated car systems exist, just haven't been mass-produced yet. The majority of the work has already been done, all that is left to do is implanting magnets in the ground every couple of meters and putting autonomous cars on the road.


The government already subsidizes transportation and social improvement things. You bringing up healthcare is a strawman fallacy (not to mention one not true in most of the world )


No it isn't. It's why assembly plants, warehouses, planes, and large cargo ships rarely have issues because human input is so limited. Where do you see the issues?


I'm not arguing semantics, I'm proving the point that automated transportation is already a proven and safe technology. The only thing standing in the way is, as you said, people like you who don't want it/fear it for no good reason. It's safe and could stop untold amounts of accidents while also decreasing commute time. It's just a shame that as this thread proves, people stand in their own way of a better world.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html driving is not a right, per the http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html.

Yeah I think I'll stop posting now. I will lastly say the following; driving a plane, boat, satellite, whatever is not the same as driving a car. To a human driving a car may be easier than driving a plane, but this is not the case with a computer. Computers "think" (if you can call preforming commands given to them by humans thinking) differently than us. A supercomputer may be able to preform millions of mathematical equations, but ask it to write a simple poem about a tissue box and you will be disappointed. Now before you all say "but this is driving, not writing poems!" let me say this; a machine will never be able to think like a human, learn like a human or reason like a human. Heck, it may not be able to perform simple tasks half as well as a monkey! However, computers CAN do certain things better than us (I personally do not think driving is one of them) .and they should be limited to use in these fields. That's all folks.

Saying "never" is a big overstatement there. Just saying.

First off: I don't know where you've worked, but in all the assembly plants and/or warehouses that I worked in when I was younger, there was an awful lot of human interaction/input in just about every aspect of the job. Computers and what not were a fairly small fraction of the day to day operations, more on the business side of things then the physical part of it.

Secondly, it would only make a better world in your opinion. To me it's just another step along the way in which the governments of the world would fully control every freaking aspect of our lives, giving us little to no actual freedoms. It's people like you that are the cause of our continued removal of civil liberties, in the U.S. and other areas of the world, because you vehemently argue that we, the human race as a whole, are unable to take care of ourselves. People like you are the reason why we have warning labels on coffee saying "Caution, it's hot and can cause burns". I'm tired of my freedom being erased small step by small step by the argument of "It's safer this way". Like New York and the removal of Trans Fat being able to be used in any cooking.

To me, it's not a good thing, it will not make the world a better and safer place. it will make the world a more boring place, more sterile, devoid of imagination and fun. It will take us one step closer to us all being dressed in grey clothing, toiling away at a pre-mandated job, and the moment anyone has a single word of dissent, they are whisked away to a detention center to be re-brainwashed.

(The Above is mostly an exaggeration, but is a somewhat accurate representation of where all this constant curtailing of things in the name of safety is leading us to).


You like taking things completely literally all the time, don't you? I know it's not a right that is guaranteed by our constitution or anything like that, but it is something that I will not allow to be taken away by fully autonomous cars, especially when my ability to drive safely has not been proven to be false.

You'd more than have a valid point if it wasn't for the fact that it has already been proven that computers are already capable of driving as good, if not better than humans.

heck. this thread is proof of that: the OP is about an autonomous car that is driving alongside human drivers AND IT DOESN"T CRASH. That means not only can it drive, but it can take into account the human driver factor.


Not in modern assembly plants and warehouses. That was true in the past, but not even so for the big ones. It's still true for small ones, but definitely not for any decent sized ones. Hell, we have robots building ather robots already as they are much more efficient than us and there are many parts that are impossible for humans to build anymore so it has to be automated.


It wouldn't deny you the joy of driving (if you find it enjoyable, which I certainly don't), but rather just keep you from driving to and from work and your errands. If you want to enjoy driving you go outside the city where it isn't automated. Likewise, it isn't the government controlling your transporation, as you'd be free to walk or ride a bike or manually drive (outside the cities and freeways). It's about improving safety and efficiency. I highly doubt you'd enjoy driving if you spent a few days on the I-405 trying to make it to work on time.

This doesn't have anything to do with the car argument so I can safely say these always make me chuckle.

How is driving like writing a poem? Aside from wacky edge-cases driving is all about processing information like speed, distance, proximity to obstacles, predicting outcomes based on past events, etc. A computer can do all of those things many times better than the most intelligent human on the planet any day of the week (and the middle of the night while said human is asleep...or sleepy...or drunk...or having an argument with another person on the phone...or fiddling with the radio).

I do. Assuming they are being literal makes it easier when people make statements that I can then refute. Now, if you had, I dunno, used some smilies or something like that... I probably still would've done it.

There's only so many ways I can interpret "I have the right to drive as long as I have a license in my hand and have the proven ability to drive safely. I will not let that right be taken away by an autonomous car." without making assumptions about what you might have intended. So, literal it is.

I worked in one of the largest food distribution warehouses on the East Coast, back in 2001. I have a friend that still works there, and according to him, very little has changed since I was there. We did mostly everything by hand, computers were only used for inventory purposes, and even then it was our responsibility to double check and triple check to make sure our numbers matched with the computer and vice versa.

Beyond that, I still don't want my ability to drive in big cities taken away. I'm sorry, but I actually enjoy driving in big cities(though I don't get to very often, I do live in rural america, basically bum [censored] nowhere, but the times I've driven on major highways, I've found it a blast. That includes the 404 Expressway in Canada, downtown Chicago during Rush Hour, and in and outside of Baltimore and Washington D.C. I do not want my freedom to drive taken away in the name of safety.

You want more safety? Require more stringent driving testing, longer learning classes, and make anyone below the age of 18 on a learners permit(Unable to drive past the time of 10pm). Hell, make it 21, I'm fine with that, because I fully believe that people under the age of 21 aren't mature enough to be fully trusted to drive an automobile at all hours of a day or night. Require more hours with a licensed professional in the car during drivers ed instead of the paltry amount that is currently required. But do not take away the general populaces ability to drive their cars by themselves in the name of safety, not when they are dozens of other things you can do beforehand to increase driver safety standards. Ooh, another one: Make anyone who has a DUI, even just one, forfeit their right to drive for a year, and IMPOUND THEIR CAR. If they have a job, either appoint them a driver that they have to pay for, or tell them to take public transportation. That right there would eliminate a large percentage of careless accidents, as statistics show, Drunken Drivers with DUIs are generally repeat offenders. If someone, after their year of no driving, then receives another DUI, remove their license for the next decade. A third after that would result in forfeiture of their license for ever. Stricter driving laws should be put into place loooonnngg before the ability to drive is taken away and given to computers.


Fair enough, I sometimes forget this is the internet, where everyone is assumed to be ignorant of legal things(and to be honest, intelligence in general). But no, I was not being literal, just figurative.

and then the car gets winged by a golfball.. if you live in socal and have driven down the coast, you know what I mean..

and takes out something critical while driving at 80mph.

a bug hitting the windshield at 80mph we can wipe off with a flick of the wrist and the wipers do the work, but a bug hitting the frontal doppler sensor and causing a spike/disruption/glitch whatever in performance.. while we're catching up on our manga backlog


and this has to work in millions of cars, all at the same time and successfully 99.98% of the durration, despite human nature?

while toyota can't even keep a relatively simple system like a hybrid on the road without recalling tens of thousands of vehicles because of what? The accelerator sticks?

and compared to an autonomous driving vehicle a hybrid is as complicated as a rubus cube..


I'm still going with the exponentially increased [censored] up ratio that I simply will believe -in mass production- when I see it happen.

l8r

This cannot be understated.


I didn't respond to that because the statement was so vague, but I agree with the first couple sentences.

I also think that near-complete automation of transportation in the US will not happen with automobiles any time soon but mass transit, including extensive mass transit that to a much smaller degree extends rurally.

I doubt that would ever happen.

I know that may upset some of the younger forum goers, but the truth of the matter is, that the majority of automobile accidents, at least in the United States, are perpetuated by one of two groups: Young people below the age of 21, and Drunken Drivers. Often times these two groups mix, to form an even more deadly group in which a large majority of traffic related fatalities occur. If we want more safety in driving, the first place to look is stricter restrictions on young people driving, including, but not limited to a longer Drivers Ed period, and a longer period on your learners permit, as well as more time in the vehicle with a licensed professional present. The second place to look is the Drunk drivers, and taking their licenses away much sooner then we currently do(I personally know several people in RL that have 4 DUIs and STILL HAVE THEIR LICENSES. That fact is absolutely mind-boggling to me, and it is why people like DEFRON are such major advocates of fully autonomous cars. If we could greatly lessen the accidents caused by those two groups, DEFRON and those like him wouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to calling for fully autonomous vehicles.

Think about it - how many things can already just break in your car that results in catastrophic failure? Tire blowout, transmission failure, engine failure, gas-line rupture, tie-rod failure, axle failure, brake-line failure, brake failure, etc, etc (yes, not all of these result in you'regonnadieitis, but meh). If your tire blows out at 75 mph, you're pretty much hosed.

Actually my main reason for wanting autonomous vehicles is because driving is a huge waste of time and even with everyone being good drivers it wouldn't alleviate congestion like an automated system would, not because it would make driving safer (though it would also do this). Though in the end, no matter what system you put in place, it would still never be as efficient as an automated one.

A lot of the safety features can be implemented through partial automation, but until full automation is done, the horrible congestion problems that plague socal will not go away.

I can think of several good reasons that aren't safety-related:

1. Giving blind people better transportation methods.
2. Less road congestion.
3. Faster driving speed.
4. Less pollution due to better driving efficiency.
5. Giving people the opportunity to get from point A to point B efficiently who don't want to drive (like me). And if you utter the words "public transportation" I will show you my mitten hand.

Mhm. If there was a real metro rail system in place in socal, I'd take it every day. Buses hardly even qualify as "transportation" IMO. I can ride a bike to most places faster than they can take me there!

Same here. Though the day a real light-rail system operates in Michigan will be one day after the end of the world.

1. Unless the system is extremely poorly-designed this isn't going to cause the vehicle to careen off the side of a mountain.
2. Important sensors that are susceptible to damage by things like hail or flying rocks would be a poor design choice, no?
3. IMO people are far less reliable. You guys have a lot more faith in human drivers than I do, apparently. I see morons cause accidents (or nearly cause them) several times per day during the week, and that's not an exaggeration. IMO you can't do much worse than a human driver.

That's not necessarily true. The systems that monitor and maintain a car's drive-train are pretty complex. Calculations that involve velocity and proximity are actually pretty straightforward.

Ehh, I can't argue against Congestion and the slow-downs it causes. All I can say is that I still don't believe it's a viable reason to take away peoples ability to drive wherever/whenever they want. I think in the end we are just going to have to agree to disagree, especially since we aren't arguing over safety like I thought was the primary bit you were arguing about. Time efficiency, to me, is not a valid reason for fully autonomous cars to be mandatory, even in specific areas. Only safety, or perhaps for Blind people/disabled people as Reneer pointed out, would be a decent reason, and even then, as I said, there are a host of other things we can do to improve driving safety before we go so far as to mandate autonomous cars.

Honestly, I liked someone's earlier idea in the thread, of adding a lane or two next to major highways/freeways/interstates that are for fully autonomous cars only. Realistically, I think this might be the only real way to go, as revamping all of our existing major roadways to accommodate the sensors and what not that would(I think, I don't really know to be honest) be required for autonomous cars to function, would takes years and years and years, and billions of dollars, whereas just adding separate lanes altogether for them would probably be quicker and cheaper. That way people like you and Reneer are accommodated, and people like me are still kept happy with our ability to drive.

There are no sensors to put into the road / change how the road looks. The Google Car drives just fine on normal public roads without any modification to the road, just to the car itself. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrmorE5W1tM&feature=endscreen&NR=1 (notice at 1:50 how that car cuts off the autonomous car) or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAiH1LX8guk

Ehhhhhhh. I don't want a fully automated future. Most people would just sit back and go for the ride and we'd stop developing as a species.

You COULD let a car drive for everyone, but then stupid drivers would be even more abundant because nobody would know how to drive. Or you could let people drive, and well. This isn't an argument against the car, though. I think it's cool, and I'm not too upset about us all probably eventually using it. Heck, if I'm alive, I'll probably use one. I just don't like the concept of possible negative effects. Very serious possible negative effects.

If you people think humanity is so stupid now, then it'll get even worse if the world is fully automated.

A controlled automated world is a good thing, though. Just enough is automated to still give us room to strain our brains daily.