One thing I haven't heard much about is how humans and AI drivers will interact.
If we all assume that AI cars are going to be very conservative and very competent drivers, will people take advantage of that? Will human drivers become even bigger assholes that cut off AI drivers at every possibility, knowing that an AI will not hit them? Why wait in a big line for an exit, when you know an AI car will always let you in. The AI driver won't even mind, as it has no emotional state, so why not?
Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car.
I don't really see the problem with this. Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists, and the only reason they don't always do so now is because of some impatient humans at the wheel who prioritize their speed over the safety of other road users.
Without road-raging human drivers behind the wheel, is the vehicle occupant going to care that they got to nap a few minutes longer on the way to work? Or got to read a few more pages of their novel?
Edit to add: Also, I'm looking forward to autonomous police cars who bringing reliable traffic enforcement to all road users.
I think you underestimate how crazy and obnoxious people can be. Take San Francisco, as an example. There are people who are poor and disenfranchised, and mentally ill, who feel that it gives them some power to saunter out into traffic and make everybody stop. With an autonomous car, that deranged person can just sit down in front of the car, bringing everything to a halt. Take New York as another example. For years I only walked in NYC and I figured that all drivers were maniacs. Then I drove though Manhattan once and I realized the actual dynamic. If a driver doesn't put on a credible appearance of being willing to run down pedestrians, the pedestrians will never stop crossing the street. How does an autonomous car fit into that?
I think these cars are going to work brilliantly in very polite and orderly places like Zurich, where everybody takes their turn and neither pedestrians nor bicyclists nor drivers feel put upon by the system. I have no idea how they are going to work here in America where we dump our mentally ill on the streets, and then don't give them sidewalks and crosswalks or any sense of dignity. I have a feeling it's going to work quite poorly.
More likely are laws introduced against willfully and unconstructively obstructing autonomous vehicles with right of way and by way of facial recognition the autonomous vehicle turns in the perpetrator., else it summons its neighbors to swarm the offender till authorities come to resolve the impasse.
You can jump out of your car and either rationally debate with them the merits of allowing access to the right-of-way, or jump directly to violent threats. The problem with autonomous cars as they are being rationalized to the public is that half the time the car will have no occupants at all. There will be nobody in the car to leap out and shake their fist.
Then either the person in the car behind will jump out and tell the idiot to move or if all the cars waiting are autonomous then they can all collectively out-wait the deranged idiot blocking traffic since they have infinite patience unlike humans.
Make sure to take your GoPro, I want to see the upload of you, on a dark night, getting out of your car, into freezing winter temperatures in a lonely, isolated part of town, to negotiate with a violent drunk or two.
Just turn around? So the cars will be near spherical in design and with 4 wheel steering? Cool.
There are so many unresolved issues around self-driving cars, and the answer always seems to be "just do this", without any real solution to the problem as described. Self-driving vehicles may well be a good thing, but let's not stick our heads in the clouds and assume "it'll be okay".
Edit: ellaboration. Stopping in traffic and calling the cops because of this is going to be a non-starter. If you're the cause of the blockage how are they going to get there? The GP is right, there are many situations where it's not going to well, and I can see lots of pranks by highschoolers that will completely mess with self driving cars.
Heck an accidental release of confetti would be an interesting experiment.
The cops would only be called if the car is blocked for several minutes or the passenger decides to do so. Nobody cares if the car has to brake for a few seconds and then continues driving as usual. We spend far more time at traffic lights anway.
As someone that commutes to work via foot (for 20 years, 4 miles round trip), living across from SF, what you describe is by far the exception. The rule? Rude and dangerous drivers not yielding to legally crossing pedestrians.
I would put the ratio of bad pedestrians to bad drivers at 1:1000.
The problem is if they don't and pedestrian gets killed there is not way to resurect the pedestrian, and start over. Therefore, pedestrian's goals is staying alive regardless of what laws are written in the books.
To put it another way, most countries out there have laws about "cars yield to pedestrians on crossings" but in a lot of places I wouldn't want to prove a point or rely on the drivers to obey the law vs just staying alive and in one piece.
> autonomous police cars who bringing reliable traffic enforcement to all road users.
Hmm. Now this is interesting. We are almost there -- red light cameras, speed camers, automated toll booths, cars are always recording and logging their speed, acceleration and hundres of other parameters, onstar system. Now we just need an incentive such as an insurance discount to have cars be remotely disabled and pulled over of they speed too much where it becomes unsafe, or if they run red light.
At first you'd think nobody would buy it, but maybe if car insurance goes from $500 a quarter to $150 there would be some takers. Then before you know it, it would become illegal to drive cars that don't have that feature.
I would be very happy if all taxis and other commercial vehicles (Uber, Lyft, etc.) would have their speed tracked and automatic citations issued for going more than 15 mph above the speed limit. As it is the taxis and Uber cars speed along my 25mph limit residential street at 50mph+ all night long.
Well, personally I would prefer they drive 25 mph, as that’s the most reasonable speed on a residential street. But if they go 35 it’s at least not too insane. 55–60 on the other hand is pedestrian murder waiting to happen.
You know, in my country (Brazil), airbags were optional until last year, and this only after a lot of political fighting because of strong lobbying from the automakers. In a country with so many automobile related deaths (44,000 in 2010, more than gun related deaths, and there are a lot of gun deaths here) it's ridiculous that the bills were so hard to pass. Also, if you refuse a breathalyzer test, it can't be used agains you (the refusal), unlike what happens in many countries. So I'm all for regulation and logging, and penalties to speeding drivers. Sorry to the libertarians (I'm one on some issues) but, less regulation my ass.
That's already happening. There are also some laws/policies which state that insurance premiums won't be increased for anyone who chooses to abstain from such a tracking program, but we'll see how long that lasts.
You don't have to raise the rates of someone who doesn't use the tracking; you simply lower the rates of someone who does - that's how the current tracking systems work, several insurance companies already have them.
I'm guessing here (no numbers to back it up), but likely the reason you don't see more of this is safe drivers would sign up for it, and in insurance the safe/low risk drivers are the ones already subsidizing the crazies and making it work. I took part in something similar for my insurance company (Progressive) and received a whopping 6% discount for safe driving.
My bet is until automated driving reaches a point where it can become cheaper than the insurance premium otherwise. At that point lies the critical mass where so many will buy it to save money that the price plummets towards zero/fully integrated basic requirement.
You can't have controlled traffic flows with constant jaywalking. And traffic flows will be increasingly important in order to minimize power consumption by automobiles and keep our growing cities liveable.
AI Cars are going to have a lot of cameras and always-on recording. Aggressive driving would risk being reported to law enforcement.
> Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car.
That's probably a good thing. Car drivers need to get out of the mindset that they own the roads.
Jaywalking is a crime for a reason, because it's potentially deadly to the pedestrian. It seems to be much worse in small/mid-size cities (probably because of less overall traffic). I've had people literally jog into my lane then walk the remaining 4 feet to the sidewalk while I slow from 35 to 10 to avoid hitting them. I think if half the cars on the road are autonomous and will just stop no matter what you will not see the decrease in pedestrian injuries and deaths some are expecting.
Jaywalking is a crime because automakers wanted it to be. It had more to do with increasing the speed and utility of cars than it did with pedestrian safety (nobody gives a shit, and nobody gets in trouble for killing pedestrians with automobiles) [1].
I hope autonomous cars can help re-enable the peaceful co-existence of multiple modes of transportation on our streets.
>> Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car.
>That's probably a good thing. Car drivers need to get out of the mindset that they own the roads.
The problem with that is the time period before AI cars are ubiquitous. In my area I've already seen pedestrians act far more carelessly now that the pedestrian right of way laws have been enhanced and there's been an uptick in pedestrian fatalities. Sometimes giving people the impression that something is safe makes them behave so much more recklessly than they would have originally.
I don't know, jaywalking is not a crime in my country and yet most people my generation have been educated to pay respect to the law of physic.
Sure the inattentive driver may be an asshole that should not be allowed to drive a car - but he is the one in the 1+ ton tin can and if does not see you, you lose.
Younger generation are crazy to me, I see them crossing the street without even looking up, anywhere, at any time without any consideration for their visibility. I'm one of those inattentive, selfish, driver and it scares me to death.
So what about self-preservation on the road until we get those fancy autonomous cars ? Car can and should drive more slowly, but pedestrians also need to look where they are going. If the street were an industry setting, health and safety regulation would probably prevent you to move if any vehicle was moving at all, even if they were all autonomous. And you would have to go through gory induction video of what happens if you don't respect that rule and either the machine fails or you underestimated inertia.
[1] Sometimes I'm looking at a parking spot, sometimes I'm looking at that cyclist that is tailgating me and will crash in my car if I'm taking slowing down too fast. Sometimes the visibility is not great, sometimes my 2 year old is making a mess. Autonomous car have sensors everywhere but a human driven car only has 1, a very powerful one, but just one.
Recently I was in a car with a friend in Southern California. We were stopped at a red light, needing to make a right turn. On our right were two people standing on the corner. They had activated the crosswalk but were not crossing, instead were focused on their (animated) conversation. Cars were coming from the left. The driver alternated between looking at the pedestrians and looking at the other cars, waiting for the other cars to pass while she also tried to figure out if the pedestrians were going to cross or not.
After about 10-12 seconds, the other cars had cleared, and the crosswalk light had switched from the green hand to the red countdown. She started to make the turn, at which point the two pedestrians literally ran into the crosswalk, and in front of her car, with no warning. Apparently they had just noticed the countdown timer and wanted to make it across the intersection without waiting for another cycle.
Fortunately she noticed the pedestrians and stopped. The pedestrians continued their run across the intersection, apparently oblivious to the fact that they'd almost been struck
Keeping in mind the following:
1. Right turns on red are legal and expected.
2. It is illegal for a pedestrian to enter a crosswalk once the countdown timer starts.
3. Full evaluation of this intersection required visually evaluating an area of 180-200 degrees, but human beings don't have vision that wide, and so it was impossible for the driver to continuously evaluate both the oncoming cars on the left and the pedestrians on the right.
4. Drivers in California are trained to look left while making a right turn.
What was the driver supposed to do in this scenario? Should the driver have been at fault if she had struck the pedestrians, and if so, why?
I was sitting in the passenger seat, so I could evaluate the intersection and see how my friend was evaluating it as well. As far as I could see, she did nothing to violate either California law or driving custom. On the other hand the pedestrians both entered a crosswalk illegally, and also violated section 21950(b) of the California Vehicle Code (which requires pedestrians to exercise due care for their own safety when entering a roadway). So I don't think that if she had struck them, she would have been at fault. But am I wrong? If so, why?
There are certainly plenty of inattentive drivers but what I'm talking about is pedestrians who don't even look before walking into the street. They just assume that the driver(s) sees them and has time to stop.
Growing up it was always drilled into us to look both ways before crossing, even in the crosswalk. Now people can't be bothered to look even one way.
Yes, people will take advantage of AI drivers, but everything will be recorded and I'm sure the autonomous car companies can figure out how to put those recordings to use. Name&shame, sell the info to insurance companies, push to make it an automatic ticket, etc. After a shakedown period a more or less reasonable compromise will surely emerge.
It's almost there. There are license plates readers everywhere, toll booths record your times and toll gates use.
Also note, it doesn't have to be a "government" thing, where you'd expect some protection (at least on paper). It can be a completely private affair between the car makers and insurnace companies.
In fact it is already almost there and it is called CLUE ( https://www.privacyrights.org/clue-and-you-how-insurers-size... ) -- a database used by insurance companies to evaluate indivicuals and record the claims they've made in the past. Feed info from these self-driving cars into them and you can't even claim any privacy or constitutional rights were violated.
On my state's main toll road (75 mph speed limit) it is common to be going 90 in the right lane and have most people zip past you like you're standing still. The design of the road only allows one or two places for speed enforcement every 10-15 miles or so.
I've long wondered why the toll authority does not simply do the math on entry and exit and send citations to the top 5-10% of speeders. It's generate many thousands of dollars in revenue for sure.
And I don't want to live in a society where it's a customary for people to take selfish advantage of AI drivers, or any other system for that matter.
Maybe it's time to split up societies? Some people seem to value absolute freedom to do anything (and freedom from consequences). Others prefer having things actually work and be nice for everyone.
Too late. Way too late. Bottlenecking transportation is the oldest law enforcement trick in the book. Why do you think they make you tell them all your info during registration, put identifying plates on your vehicle, compile databases of VIN numbers, get access to OnStar tracking computers, etc.
That is equivalent to wanting to live in a world wherein local government is adequately funded through ordinary taxation, such that it doesn't resort to highway shakedowns of the people for its operating revenue.
I'm pretty sure "highway shakedowns" as you put it only happen when you are grossly disobeyed clearly posted speed limits, rolling through stop signs, or trying to squeeze through that yellow light so you can get to work two minutes sooner.
I'm being somewhat facetious, but there are several ways to fund local governments, including but not limited to:
A. Tax the people directly based on $ASSET (usually income, or property, or a combination of the two).
B. Lower direct taxes as well as state and federal grants, and fines from enforcement.
As someone who doesn't necessarily mind sending a few dimes on the dollar to the government, and doesn't speed often enough or at such egregious speeds that I'm subject to hyperbolic "highway shakedowns," I kind of prefer B to A because it results in a lower effective tax rate for me.
Sweden's effective tax rate is 37% on a salary of $100k (2012). UK is about 32%, US about 27% (all read from a graph) [1].
In Sweden this extra tax provides free schooling up to and including university (you even get paid going to higher education US$300+/month in grants), low cost health care with a cost ceiling (US$130/year), affordable child care, social security net, local government owned and (well) managed infrastructure (power, water, fibre, roads, etc.)
Our local government is funded through direct taxation. My local government tax rate is 30.2%.
Not sure it tells the whole story though. VAT is not included in effective tax rate AFAIK (as defined in the Economist article).
Unfortunately, that's where things are headed regardless. More cameras, cheaper sensors, big data. Every intersection will eventually give you a red light ticket. Etc etc.
Some lady did a hit and run, and her new Ford called the police [0]. There are surveillance cameras in the park by my house. I've given up, fighting this is like trying to stop a tsunami.
Fighting what? Her Ford "called the police" in that it automatically reported a collision had taken place. You make it sound like it sent a message saying "my owner committed a crime, go get her" which is not what happened.
Are you saying the world would be better off if she had gotten away with a hit and run?
I want to live in a society where less and less people die by reckless driving - make that 'less and less people die by automobile, period'. As far as I can see, only technology will do that, education being the other means but a much less reliable one. If law enforcement only gets involved when a crime is comitted, that's fine by me.
If AI driven cars achieve a superior safety record there won't be many human drivers...the insurance premiums will price most people out of the market. That is, the cost of insurance for human drivers will be exceedingly high.
I don't see why the cost would be any higher than it is today. If anything, driver-less cars would have lower insurance premiums. So if you can afford/justify your insurance today, you could still afford it in the future.
I could even see all insurance getting cheaper, since the risk of accidents for all cars should decrease as the mix of cars gets more and more automated.
Sure, it will be more expensive than the automated car. But why would it be more expensive than today? Why would automated cars on the road make manually operated cars more risky than they are today?
At the moment, there is no other option other than human driving cars. Once automated cars are a realistic option, insurance companies can properly price insurance for human drivers much higher (comparatively speaking). A self-driving car should have almost 0 risk, meaning the vast majority of cars (if self driving) would carry no risk to the insurer.
> Once automated cars are a realistic option, insurance companies can properly price insurance for human drivers much higher (comparatively speaking).
What's "proper" about raising the prices for no reason? If they start pricing human drivers higher than they currently do, some other insurer will just undercut them.
yes, but that doesn't explain why the underlying risk of insuring human drivers would rise. Nor does it explain why, since the underlying risk is the same, Progressive wouldn't offer lower rates than Geico's.
I suspect that the risk would actually lower for the remaining human drivers as the AI vehicles are probably going to be better at predicting and dodging our stupid mistakes, resulting in fewer accidents even if we don't improve our driving abilities.
I don't think that those that choose to drive would provide more risk than they do today, however, they would provide (my gut and no more) substantially more risk than driverless cars. What incentive would an insurance provider have to insure a human driver? Much higher premiums I suggest.
The same incentive they have today: profit based on taking in more in then they have to pay out based on risk. If insurance companies arbitrarily bump up insurance for manually driven cars, then that opens up a market for someone to jump in and accurately charge based on risk.
You presuppose that American insurance companies are not a very effective cartel, primarily functioning in the regulatory capture industry, with a side business in insurance.
It would be cool if what you describe actually happened, but in the real world, premiums only ever move long-term in one direction: up.
More or less, I agree. With fewer accidents and fewer drivers insurance companies will be looking at decreased revenues. No company wants decreased revenues of that sort. Now, I'm not 100% familiar with the insurance industry and any regulatory capture that may take place, but then would be the time for a cartel to flex its muscles and ensure that startup insurance companies don't undercut them with fair pricing.
>That is, the cost of insurance for human drivers will be exceedingly high.
right now, in california, you are only required to carry on the order of $35,000 in liability insurance.
Now, personally, I think this is completely crazy, that it defeats the whole point of liability laws, etc, etc, but the point is that unless you change that, even if the rates go way up for human drivers, if the insurance companies can continue to sell plans that are limited to only $35K in liability, people who don't fear bankruptcy will still very likely be able to buy that legally-minimal insurance for not all that much money.
Yeah, I've heard that before. It's crazy to me. The most basic insurance in EU is required to cover up to 5 million euro against damages to people and 3 million against damage to property. How US can only require $35k liability cover is beyond me. Does that not mean that in pretty much any accident you have to pay extra out of your own pocket?
(that "basic" insurance costs me $150 for the whole year and allows me to drive anywhere within EU for unlimited period of time. I also have full comprehensive cover for which I pay another $500 for a full year that insures me against damages to my own vehicle and provides EU-wide breakdown cover).
>How US can only require $35k liability cover is beyond me. Does that not mean that in pretty much any accident you have to pay extra out of your own pocket?
Generally speaking, only poor people carry the minimum liability insurance. Everyone else carries limits closer to yours, at least for damage to people; I mean, doing 3 million in damage to a human, I can see that. Doing that much damage to property would be... completely destroying a really nice house, which is unlikely. Also, by American standards, your rates look unrealistically low. maybe you could get something close to your level of liability coverage for that much every month.
But... uh, yeah, this brings up another point (and why I don't know how much just a few million in liability would cost) - everyone who isn't poor here carries what's called "uninsured motorist" coverage... this is essentially insurance that covers damage to me if someone with minimum coverage is at fault and I get hurt and they can't pay.
Australia has a mandatory level of insurance called Compulsory Third-Party insurance or CTP. It is required by law for all registered motor vehicles in all states and typically covers in the order of $20m or so of third-party medical expenses and/or compensation related to an injury sustained in an accident. Property damage is not covered.
As for relative price typically one would be looking at around $300-600 per year, depending on age, driving history, type of car etc. Granted with our universal health care I suspect that our average out-of-pocket medical expenses for injuries from car accidents are lower than the US.
To some extent this sounds similar to how people treat public transportation buses now. Drivers and pedestrians behave more recklessly, knowing that the bus operator will go through great lengths to avoid a collision.
But you raise the interesting point that it might perversely be safer to make automated cars less safe. Make them just dangerous enough that people won't be deliberately stupid around them.
The interaction of AI and manual cars will depend on the general discipline of the drivers. There are countries in the world where according to rumours the traffic rules are somewhat open to interpretation...
Right. And, this is generally taken to mean that we--now freed of life's pesky minutiae (such as work), which is handled via automation--will all frolic in meadows, wearing fig leaves and pursuing our inner potential. We will subsist off of a basic income and life will simply be as intended, without the need for labor or physical movement for that matter.
And, I wonder what it is in human nature or recent history that makes so many believe that this will be even remotely close to how things actually unfold. That property rights will somehow cease to exist or that those who control the various automata won't simply accrete more economic power unto themselves, relying on ever fewer humans with whom to share that power. Yet, somehow, they will share the spoils such that the masses of unnecessary humans may live comfortably without expending the slightest effort.
It need not be a full-on sci-fi style dystopic future to be problematic. We are already seeing degrees of the problem. On our relentless quest to automate humans into obsolescence, seems that we should occasionally pause to consider the consequences in the context of what we know to be true of human nature and history.
If we all assume that AI cars are going to be very conservative and very competent drivers, will people take advantage of that? Will human drivers become even bigger assholes that cut off AI drivers at every possibility, knowing that an AI will not hit them? Why wait in a big line for an exit, when you know an AI car will always let you in. The AI driver won't even mind, as it has no emotional state, so why not?
Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car.