Future of humans driving motor vehicles.

[reohn2]

There's nothing more empowering than the freedom to choose.

[Mike Sales]

There's nothing more empowering than the freedom to choose.

Hobson's choice?

[Cugel]

Given the likelihood of AI being advanced enough to match the best humans at hazard recognition and negotiating complex junctions is very low within the next decade, I would imagine that by the time AI is safe enough, most governments will have finally come around to the real need to intelligently plan travel i.e we won't all be commuting miles to work because jobs will be neared home. Shops and utilities will be planned around housing. There will be joined up thinking. Consequently there will be little need for individually owned motor cars, so just as AI becomes good enough the need for it will be relegated to taxis, buses and delivery vehicles.

Finally a brave new world will greet us where whenever we need to travel more than a few miles we have the option of AI piloted taxi, or subway or train for longer distances. All electric of course, all powered through a system of collection from guided roadways, with battery backup for the niggly bits. I can actually imagine that AI piloted aircraft will be here before cars because even though you have 3 dimensions so to speak to fly in, the only non aircraft item an AI system would have to spot and avoid would be birds. No jaywalking humans 200 feet above ground, no kids on BMXs pulling wheelies off the pavement straight into traffic.

Modern computer games are fairly realistic now, so with augmented reality, with another a decade's improvement, they'll be so immersive as to satisfy most people's desire for a driving experience. That will only leave the recreational cyclist and walker to use segregated lanes around the city and country. Unless we give way too to the march of technology and have 'peleton' type systems at home. Then whether we wear hi vis or helmets won't matter in the slightest. And with electronics becoming increasingly low powered, having generators in our home bikes to provide the load simulating the wind and the grade, we can generate a trifle of spare electricity.

It's hard to determine whether your post is a tongue-in-cheek bout of ultra-optimism, meant to enlighten us as to just how unlikely it all is .... or a serious belief in that Progress - the modern form of general utopianism. Either way, it is a droll item to read as one chaws on some nutty porridge.

Cugel

[cotswolds]

Yes, but the public outrage at the idea that people give up their *right* to drive their own cars....

I doubt many will own their own self driving cars, the economics won't make sense. The average car is actually used about 5% of the time. With shared self driving cars, this could easily be pushed up to 50%, which brings down costs a lot. (The logic doesn't work for taxis, because you have to pay the driver who will be sitting doing nothing some of the time.)

Travel patterns will change. Instead of having a big family car to drop the children off at school and then carry on to work, you will order up separate cars suited to the journey. Your self driving car will drop you off at work then disappear without you having to worry about the cost of parking. At the weekend you will order up a different type of car suited to a family outing.

Great swathes of land currently used for storing cars for the 95% of time they're not being used will be freed up for other uses. Multi-story car parks will be knocked down for housing. Cycle lanes instead of on street parking. Local authorities are already under pressure to reduce parking round houses to make better use of land, that trend will become stronger.

Old self driving cars will be rare – support for a 10 year old car with life-critical safety systems will be unaffordable. It all points to the economics of shared cars.

Unfortunately I don’t see it happening any time soon. I’ve heard industry experts estimate 20 – 60 years. The problem of forming lorries into mini trains – say 5 vehicles – on the motorway, with one driver monitoring in the front cab and the rest taking rest periods is trivially simple compared to driving a car down the high street and would have immediate economic benefits yet that doesn’t look close.

I hope I live to see it all, but I’m not sure I will.

[Cugel]

< . . . .their *right* to drive . . . >

Indeed. As well as the all the technical challenges, the need-to-control-a-motor-vehicle has become very deeply ingrained in our culture as a part of personal identity.

There are so many varied aspects to this e.g.

power & adult identity = society has trusted me to control this powerful and potentially dangerous object in a public space.

freedom & fun = I'm in control ( of all these complex driving decisions ) and I get a payback of personal pleasure for doing so ( ref : Top Gear and associated product where cars = adult toys ).

. . . even forum Usernames [ not this one of course ] where people identify with the motor vehicles that they possess.

etc . . . blah . . .

The weight of a list of likely sensible future policies & behaviours is a few ounces compared to the ton-weight of a list of likely mad and self-harming future human actions. After all, the various motives that humans harbour which generate their self (and other)-harming are legion. Many become ossified into public policies of the immovable kind, especially if a few blackguards and guttersnipes are making loadsa dosh out of them.

Many human crazes come disguised in wrappers that promise pleasure, of course. Degenerate gamblers, addicts of the various drugs and motor-madmen all adore the wrappers of their fixations, trading their immediate but short pleasures for a long future of degradations, large & small.

'Twas ever thus and ever will be.

Cugel

[Cugel]

There's nothing more empowering than the freedom to choose.

Ha ha - the "freedom to choose" is a chimera, wrought by history and Svengalis getting us to "choose" policies and behaviours to their personal liking and imagined benefit. "Freedom to choose" is just another bit of Enlightenment hubris, now patented by advertmen everywhere. The real question is: who or what forms and installs the "choices" of the Svengalis and advertmen?

Naturally, we all prefer to believe in our freedom to choose, along with the belief that we have only made "rational" choices in our own interest. That Adam Smith has a lot to answer for!

Cugel, just another flesh robot programmed by a history written in English, installed when I was just a bairn then amended by mass media (like yours).

[Oldjohnw]

One thing of which you can be sure: whoever owns the company which runs these machines will self drive/have chauffeur driven their own vehicle and not be part of the masses.

[reohn2]

There's nothing more empowering than the freedom to choose.

Ha ha - the "freedom to choose" is a chimera, wrought by history and Svengalis getting us to "choose" policies and behaviours to their personal liking and imagined benefit. "Freedom to choose" is just another bit of Enlightenment hubris, now patented by advertmen everywhere. The real question is: who or what forms and installs the "choices" of the Svengalis and advertmen?

Naturally, we all prefer to believe in our freedom to choose, along with the belief that we have only made "rational" choices in our own interest. That Adam Smith has a lot to answer for!

Cugel, just another flesh robot programmed by a history written in English, installed when I was just a bairn then amended by mass media (like yours).

It was specific to motoring,and obviously choice does have a lot to do with driving.

[reohn2]

There's nothing more empowering than the freedom to choose.

Hobson's choice?

It can be.
Though some choice needs to be removed where that choice is negatively affecting others.

[Mike Sales]

There's nothing more empowering than the freedom to choose.

Hobson's choice?

It can be.
Though some choice needs to be removed where that choice is negatively affecting others.

I mean that though all choices are circumscribed, "consumer choice" is the most limited of all illusions.

[reohn2]

I mean that though all choices are circumscribed, "consumer choice" is the most limited of all illusions.

I think we're in total agreement

[Pete Owens]

Should humans be allowed to continue controlling motor vehicles on public roads once AI in driverless vehicles surpasses human controlled driving in safety and efficiency?

Obviously not.
Once computer control is established it will be seen as an essential safety feature - in the same way that brakes or headlights are.

Human error is behind the vast majority of road crashes - so replacing the human component in the control system will produce an overwhelming improvement in the safety of the streets.

[Mike Sales]

Should humans be allowed to continue controlling motor vehicles on public roads once AI in driverless vehicles surpasses human controlled driving in safety and efficiency?

Obviously not.
Once computer control is established it will be seen as an essential safety feature - in the same way that brakes or headlights are.

Human error is behind the vast majority of road crashes - so replacing the human component in the control system will produce an overwhelming improvement in the safety of the streets.

Does this imply that there will come a date when all remaining non-AI cars will be banned? I wonder what proportion of AI vehicles will trigger this ban? Or will it happen as soon as superior AI cars are on the market?
Of course, even then, the human component in the shape of cyclists and pedestrians will remain.
I hope we will be still out there making our human errors.

[Pete Owens]

It will be phased in the same way as other safety or environmental regulations - in the same way as seat belts or lead free fuel for example.

To start with it will be compulsory feature for new motor vehicles.
At a later date it will be illegal for a human to override the computer control.
Safely conscious cities may ban human controlled vehicles from within their areas.

[Pete Owens]

Should humans be allowed to continue controlling motor vehicles on public roads once AI in driverless vehicles surpasses human controlled driving in safety and efficiency?

Will it though? it's all very well that it will 'apply the brakes when needed', but will that be too late?
Take the following scenarios (not that unlikely)

As usual, where supposed barriers to self driving cars are produced the examples tend to be things that humans find difficult, but computers are good at. These are exactly the sort of things we will see the greatest benefits from.

1) mud on road in country lane, driver using 'human tech' slows as he sees this hazard and is able to stop when a car (or bike) comes the other way around the bend in the road.

The typical human will have both over-estimated their abilities - and will be less aware of the potential for hazards. They will be driving to the speed limit (60 mph on country lanes) or limited to the geometry of what they can see rather than what potentially may appear. It is extremely unlikely that hey will be aware of a change of road surface conditions sufficiently far ahead to adjust their speed for the potential need to brake. Most drivers drive too fast for the conditions most of the time, which is exactly why this sort of situation is likely to result in a crash - or at least emergency braking should that car or bike appear at just the wrong time - and of course the glacial reactions of humans compared to computers further exacerbates the situation. Of course, when the human slams on the brakes in the mud they will skid (presumably you don't want any computer to interfere between pressing the foot pedal and brake pads - so anti-lock brakes are out).

Now the computer will be constantly adjusting the speed for the prevailing conditions - it will know how far it can see and will be making conservative assumptions for braking ability. When the oncoming car or bike becomes visible it will apply routine rather than emergency braking so mud will be less of an issue.

So this is an argument FOR rather than AGAINST computer control.

2) As AI car is going along road, there is the mud on road, but the 'eyes' don't see it and the car carries on at 40mph regardless, car (or bike) coming around bend, so brakes are applied (they are ABS, but because of the mud they can't stop the vehicle like they would on a dry, clean road) COLLISION.

The whole point of ABS is that a computer takes over the brakes from a human adjusting the brake pressure on each wheel when it detects the threshold of a skid. This is one aspect of computer control that has been routinely installed in cars for many years.

Adjusting speed for the prevailing conditions is something human drivers are particularly poor at. Because emergency braking is by definition a rare event, most are unfamiliar with just how much wet roads impact on braking or how little you can see in fog; so tend not to adjust their speeds, which is why so many human drivers crash in poor conditions.

Again, this is an argument FOR rather than AGAINST computer control.

1) cars are all stopped at mini -roundabout 'driver tech' pilot indicates to another driver 'you can go' all cars are moving within a few seconds

As opposed to a few mili-seconds for computers.
Again, this is something that human drivers find difficult - having to make eye contact with several drivers in different directions when we can only look in one direction at once - and with a limited ability to signal their intentions.

2) As above but AI of the cars prevent them all moving.... GRIDLOCK

This is something that computers can solve very very easily. The whole internet is dependent on it with different computers wanting to put data packets onto the same piece of wire - resolving who gets to go first extremely efficiently.