It's what pilots the drones over warzones for example.. basically it's a comity of computers that all share in the responsibility of flying the thing, they take decisions together and majority rules.

And yet.., I really wanna be yelling at the drunk slob, and not at his dashboard if I'm T-boned..



Which could be very bad, on a busy freeway at high speeds..

In my opinion, having worked for many years in the field with some of the most robust military systems in the world, the more complex the system is, the bigger the [censored] up ratio gets.

Off the top of my head...airplanes, satellites, manufacturing...all automated up to their eyeballs. The point I'm trying to make is that there are plenty of ways to make sure people don't get hurt when/if something goes wrong. The thing isn't a personal computer...it's not going to BSOD and drive you off a cliff. If there was a higher probability that the system might actually kill someone because it can't think like a human than the probability of a human driver killing someone because they do think like a human I'd be amazed.

Blue screen of Death could have a more literal meaning if it happened while driving

Damn! Beat to the joke in the same minute ^

True. But don't compare these drones to driving a car, first of all they have a much greater field of movement, secondly there is no pilot who's life is at stake. Also, there are drones which are remote controlled by humans.

I won't.

But if I have anything less than full blown military auto-piloting capabilities in my car, I'm keeping my hands on the wheel.

Thank you for complying. When I asked you to list these systems, I wasn't doubting they exist. However, the situations in which they are used differ greatly from driving a car.

Nobody is arguing that automated cars would do away with car accidents, though. If vehicular death rates go down (and I'd bet quite a lot that they would) then that's an improvement.

The only way to test this would be to put the said automated systems to work. Personally, I hope they won't.

Wow, it's the first time that this: http://xkcd.com/386/ has happened bad enough to make me connect my phone to my computer at work so I can log in and use a physical keyboard to post on the forums.

Oh please, don't pull the hacker card. There's no need to have the failsafe unit be accessible to any input. The hacker card is only pulled by people who don't know what they're talking about

You're right, navigating by radar instead of getting cues beforehand to a change due to integration with an already automated traffic light system is much more dangerous

Not when everything is automated

Which is what failsafes are for

Except... everything is automated so every car has ample spacing between them and will be able to break in time. There are significantly less accidents also, because it's all automated. Finally this sends out a message informing cars further back on the road so they get out of the lane in time, while cars in other lanes make room for them keeping all traffic-related congestion to a minimum,

They already do. Every year in various places hobbiests and large corporations get together and test their automated cars on the road and by and large they are very successful and collisions are mostly a thing of the past (2008)

Does anyone know how many people drive around with a busted tail light and don't know it?

now think rear proximity sensor.

there's just too much that'll need constant upkeep and maintenance.. and people are lazy, if not outright ignorant..

Of course. Someone has to drink the juice to make sure it doesn't turn you green. Maybe I'm biased because software engineering is kinda my thing, but I'd feel a heck of a lot safer with computers driving than with people driving.

The wonderful thing about automated cars is they would be able to tell you if something is busted and refuse to allow you to drive with something like a broken sensor.

Yay failsafes!

And you know any better? Honestly once a person gets ahold of the security system that links the car to the main computer, there is no reason they couldn't get into the inner-workings of the car itself and shut down that fail-safe. Honestly, you're kind of in the minority in this thread, it seems to me that a lot of people would much prefer to remain in control of their vehicles. Can you think of the reason why? Hint: It's because human judgement, while prone to errors, is in general, better then a computer systems, because we can account for ALL external factors, not just what the car can sense. A fully autonomous car is just a bad idea in general, until they can guarantee 100% safety 100% of the time, with absolutely no chance of error. And since there is always a possibility of error, especially in computer systems, that will never happen. Even beyond that, It still will never happen because, like in this thread, people who think fully autonomous cars are the greatest thing ever, are going to be in the minority to the people who enjoy driving and don't want to give it up to a computer system. This is a novelty, nothing more, nothing less.

There's no external security system for them to get ahold of. The failsafe would be (and is) tamper resistant to prevent such actions.

People have given up the majority of control in the majority of vehicles. The only one where it hasn't happened yet is the average household car. Humans are incapable of driving most vehicles by hand, actually. So you are quite literally wrong. In fact, the last time people refused to give up control was when commercial jet airliners first started gaining popularity. Guess what? airplane crashes during landing were greatly increased until the FAA basically told pilots to let the computers do their dang job.


The potential for error in a computer system is far smaller than the potential for error in humans, this is the major reason almost everything in the modern world is automated. The potential for error in a computer system can also be kept in check through failsafe systems (WHICH ARE SEPARATE SYSTEMS AND NOT INTEGRATED INTO THE MAIN UNIT SYSTEM), unlike with people.

My friend there is no such thing as a failsafe for any given situation (even in a fully-automated system, which by the way would be incredibly difficult to organize world-wide or even country-wide), it's the beauty of our world . Not to mention that these cars would probably cost significantly more and few would buy them (thus the entire system could not be automated). And a half-assed auto system with the other half of the population not having a clue as to what's going on is the proverbial "recipe for disaster". As for my final point, in a fully automated system, one little problem can cause a massive domino effect. Generally, the more complex something is the likelier something will get messed up (though failure is eventually guaranteed even in a simple system). Think cancer; the reason it's so difficult to destroy is because it's so darn simple!

I know. I'm just saying I like to drive, I like being in control of my car not a computer.

Soon our world will be like the one of Wall-E. Where everything is computer automated and everyone is lazy and obese.

still not convinced


It's like you said yourself a few posts ago -it'll only be safe when the entire system is automated. Completely. No exception.

Which means people would need to be automated as well, since their behavior is an inherent part of the system.

Christ Deffy, you live in socal.. how many friggin' beaters do you see on the highway everyday? Do you think people's attitudes will change just because their car does more than tell 'em to buckle up?


How many people won't jury rig their car to run without the sensor anyway, because they're late for work and can't care enough to deal with it? What do we do with these people, since they'll hardly stands out using generalized multiple choice tests?

It's human nature I don't trust, not the automated systems... and those two will be at war for the domination of the steering wheel for a looong time coming me thinks.

No it wouldn't, actually. Since most of the traffic control systems are already automated, the job is already half-done. I <3 sigalert.

Thanks to things like government subsidies, trade-ins, and system adaptations, this isn't true either. Yay.

Did you know that cascading failure is almost always the result of human intervention in the real world? automated systems rarely, if ever, have cascading failure because of failsafes.


I agree it would only work on a fully automated road, however I disagree about needing to "automate" people. YOu just need to remove them from the equation by making it not possible for them to assume control, which is simple enough.

It's exactly because of this that I am so in favor of a fully automated system. Most all crashes are the result of selfish human behavior or lack of attention, which an automated system would fix.

How many people won't jury rig their car to run without the sensor anyway, because they're late for work and can't care enough to deal with it? What do we do with these people, since they'll hardly stands out using generalized multiple choice tests?

This is true, but just like tollroads and HOVs, the government can step in and make certain roads automated-only and have systems in place keeping regular cars off of them.

The system wouldn't work without government intervention, admittedly, though.

Weird. In my experience human error is more common than computer errors in just about every situation imaginable. Even if that weren't true (for example, when/if factors the computer isn't aware of come into play) you're comparing to a human under ideal circumstances. I find that humans tend to operate motor vehicles at FAR below optimal levels of acuity...even for a human. A computer would operate at 100% capacity 100% of the time. I'd be willing to bet that would more than make up for the computers inability to understand what to do when a helicopter full of ninjas is shooting armadillos in stealth pajamas at you.

There are a lot of incorrect and unsubstantiated assumptions here, but whatever. I give up. A lot of the issues people are bringing up can be handled. You guys have seen too many TV shows with hackers and computer failures as part of the plot...or something.

To bad the majority of vehicles that are driven ARE IN FACT PERSONAL AUTOMOBILES. Cars and trucks vastly outnumber all other forms of transportation combined, and that includes trains, planes, ships, hot air balloons, subways, and any other vehicle you can think of. So in fact it is you that are in wrong in this situation. The vast majority of transportation is done by the individual and their own personally owned automobile, and they will not give up that control.

Do you realize what you just said? It's something like; "yeah people have pretty much stopped living in apartment buildings, the only exception is the average urban center." You basically stated the exception is ONLY about 80%!

Yup. But there's always resistance to change, even beneficial change.

You seem to have little understanding of how such automated systems work. As a prime example we have airliners, which have been using computers to control flight since the late 70's. They are multiple-redundancy systems - multiple processors that are manufactured under very controlled conditions. Boats have similar autopilot systems that have been in use since before that.

And if the person malfunctions? Falls asleep? Gets distracted? Computers can react (brake, etc) much faster then a human could ever hope to.

Hate to break it to you, but driving is not a right. You have a driver's license - a license granted to you by the state that says you are capable of driving. The state can also take that license away if you prove incapable of driving.

I'm sorry, but the psychologist in me is giggling right now. Humans are not capable of logical thought to the extent that a computer is. Humans do make stupid, obvious makes (erm, mistakes, but that proves my point ) all the time, and not only while driving. Getting drunk while driving? Check. Eating while driving? Check. Looking down at your radio? Check.

You've flown in a modern airplane? Then you've put your life in the hands of an automated pilot. On a cruise-liner? Yup.

A computer can react so much faster then you it's not even funny.

Erm, cars may play a large role in short-distance and single-unit transit, but the vast majority of transportation does not involve the household car, but the likes of trains and ships (and planes to a slightly lesser extent, though also the one most automated due to being far too complex for humans to pilot them anymore).

1. Traffic lights aren't nearly "half" of the job and it's funny you of all people would think that.

2. Yeah of course the government is going to help out when they are reluctant to provide basic health care. Of course! Pshaw! How could I have not thought of this!

3. Human intervention is inevitable since it's required to make the system work.