Volvo will claim full liability in case of self-driving car crash

[Curufinwe_wins]

Well, we need to define "better" to begin with. I'm talking about safety, not just efficiency and consistency. As far as safety goes, the driverless cars still have a hell of a long way to go before proving themselves.

 

Not to mention the intangible quality of "driving a car is fun". Some of us do enjoy driving you know, even over long distances.

What the hell are you talking about? 2 MILLION MILES... 4 accidents (3 while humans were driving, one a rear end that google "claims" wasn't the car's fault). So one accident per 2 MILLION MILES are you kidding me? According to DOT and Allstate data http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm and http://www.allstatenewsroom.com/channels/News-Releases/releases/seventh-annual-allstate-america-s-best-drivers-report-reveals-safest-driving-cities

the average US adult only goes 165,000 miles without an accident.

 

That's already 10 times better.

 

I love to drive. That doesn't make me automatically safer than a computer which has every single advantage in existence over me, and historically has outperformed me (while I did hit a deer last year, which in Northern Wi is kinda a right of passage but whatever) that puts me now at 1 per ~130k (and hopefully I can extend that quite a bit before the next accident, if it ever occurs.)

[iamdarkyoshi]

And if you ever crash and it was your fault or break traffic rules you wont get your license suspended, but instead will have to use a self driving car and can no longer control it yourself.

that profile pic is a perfect reaction face.

[Trik'Stari]

What the hell are you talking about? 2 MILLION MILES... 4 accidents (3 while humans were driving, one a rear end that google "claims" wasn't the car's fault). So one accident per 2 MILLION MILES are you kidding me? According to DOT and Allstate data http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm and http://www.allstatenewsroom.com/channels/News-Releases/releases/seventh-annual-allstate-america-s-best-drivers-report-reveals-safest-driving-cities

the average US adult only goes 165,000 miles without an accident.

 

That's already 10 times better.

I guess I'm above average then, as I went 6 years without an accident involving another vehicle, and even then the only accident I had (before the head on collision that wasn't my fault) was a deer running into the side of the car.

 

And also, statistics don't mean anything to the individual. If 50% of the cars in the US were replaced with Automated cars, and the same trend continued, THEN you would have definitive evidence. Until then, it's speculation based upon circumstantial evidence.

 

That being said, automated cars are probably safer than the average driver (but then again, so am I), but I won't be getting in one. Mainly because I don't trust it more than I trust myself, and I enjoy driving FAR more than I enjoy being driven. That's just how I feel, and no amount of statistics will ever change my mind.

[Curufinwe_wins]

I guess I'm above average then, as I went 6 years without an accident involving another vehicle, and even then the only accident I had (before the head on collision that wasn't my fault) was a deer running into the side of the car.

 

And also, statistics don't mean anything to the individual. If 50% of the cars in the US were replaced with Automated cars, and the same trend continued, THEN you would have definitive evidence. Until then, it's speculation based upon circumstantial evidence.

Actually not necessarily. US average is 10 years with any sort of accident (don't worry due to a deer I am also below average.)

[Trik'Stari]

Actually not necessarily. US average is 10 years with any sort of accident (don't worry due to a deer I am also below average.)

I'm curious as to whether or not deer actually matter. It's an environmental hazard, so I would think it's not included in the average, sort of like a tree falling on your car WHILE you're moving.

 

And again, if they become the majority, and then go 10 years with a lower accident count, I will concede the point. I still won't use one, but I will concede the point that they are "superior".

[Curufinwe_wins]

I'm curious as to whether or not deer actually matter. It's an environmental hazard, so I would think it's not included in the average, sort of like a tree falling on your car WHILE you're moving.

 

And again, if they become the majority, and then go 10 years with a lower accident count, I will concede the point. I still won't use one, but I will concede the point that they are "superior".

By not using one you endanger the rest of the population, which you do not have the right to do (now that said for as long as they are as or more expensive than conventional cars, and/or are not mandated by the government, you will be fine, and obviously that isn't happening for a while.)

 

Now there are lots of things in which this is dynamic true, perhaps the most relevant modern comparison is smoking in buildings, which numerous states have taken actions to outlaw said practice (along with a Clinton executive order doing the same in Federal buildings) as there are massive measurable health risks associated with second-hand smoking and imposing systematic heath risks upon anyone else (without their consent) is clearly not within

universal rights.

 

Again I think it will be a long time before that argument is applied to driver-less cars (mainly because people are stupid and ignorant, and feelings mean more than actual data), but without a doubt that is the argument that will eventually lead to manual driving blanket bans (potentially with minor exceptions/exclusions).

 

My argument was never autonomous vehicles are ready, it's that they fundamentally speaking are better, safer, more efficient and eventually they will be the future.

[Trik'Stari]

By not using one you endanger the rest of the population, which you do not have the right to do (now that said for as long as they are as or more expensive than conventional cars, and/or are not mandated by the government, you will be fine, and obviously that isn't happening for a while.)

 

Now there are lots of things in which this is dynamic true, perhaps the most relevant modern comparison is smoking in buildings, which numerous states have taken actions to outlaw said practice (along with a Clinton executive order doing the same in Federal buildings) as there are massive measurable health risks associated with second-hand smoking and imposing systematic heath risks upon anyone else (without their consent) is clearly not within

universal rights.

 

Again I think it will be a long time before that argument is applied to driver-less cars (mainly because people are stupid and ignorant, and feelings mean more than actual data), but without a doubt that is the argument that will eventually lead to manual driving blanket bans (potentially with minor exceptions/exclusions).

 

My argument was never autonomous vehicles are ready, it's that they fundamentally speaking are better, safer, more efficient and eventually they will be the future.

1. I have a right to drive whatever the hell I wan, until the government decides otherwise, which I would fight.

2. The laws against smoking in buildings are based upon bullshit. IF you actually go look at the information on "second hand smoke" you'll see that you'd have to inhale enough of it to essentially be a "first hand" smoker. It's not based upon fact, it's based upon bias.

 

Also, I'd be more than willing to challenge a driverless car to both a race, and a distance test. I might not outdo it, but I know I'd be a match for it. (in case you didn't know, I used to drive for a living).

[Curufinwe_wins]

1. I have a right to drive whatever the hell I wan, until the government decides otherwise, which I would fight.

2. The laws against smoking in buildings are based upon bullshit. IF you actually go look at the information on "second hand smoke" you'll see that you'd have to inhale enough of it to essentially be a "first hand" smoker. It's not based upon fact, it's based upon bias.

 

Also, I'd be more than willing to challenge a driverless car to both a race, and a distance test. I might not outdo it, but I know I'd be a match for it. (in case you didn't know, I used to drive for a living).

All the while being less than 1/20th as safe according to the limited data set we have for you.

 

1. It doesn't change the fact that you don't have that right at all.

2. Bullshit to you there I have seen all of the data, and while personally I don't believe they should be legal at all (at least until their tax matches their cost to the healthcare system which stands at about 7-10 dollars PER PACK), both of these points are off topic. My apologies for bringing them up. Feel free to leave a rebuttal; I will read it but probably just won't respond to it to prevent overall complete loss of topic.

[Curufinwe_wins]

About to go into car crash ? just put vehicle into automatic mode before crash and volvo will take the blame.

 

Unless the car is utterly destroyed (and perhaps even then) volvo will be able to see that action having occured and will probably not honor the claim.

[Trik'Stari]

All the while being less than 1/20th as safe according to the limited data set we have for you.

 

1. It doesn't change the fact that you don't have that right at all.

2. Bullshit to you there I have seen all of the data, and while personally I don't believe they should be legal at all (at least until their tax matches their cost to the healthcare system which stands at about 7-10 dollars PER PACK), both of these points are off topic. My apologies for bringing them up. Feel free to leave a rebuttal; I will read it but probably just won't respond to it to prevent overall complete loss of topic.

1. That right is apart of the idea of a "free society".

2. I've never seen any legitimate study that said anything otherwise. Please feel free to post a link to a study that shows something different.

[vXhanz]

Autonomous vehicles only seem good for public transportation like buses, as well as long haul trucking. For the average consumer I don't see this really gaining any ground except with an elderly person who needs a vehicle to get them to a Dr or the hospital. Sure, you can call a taxi, but there are a lot of people who want to be independent and a vehicle like this would help facilitate that and keep the roads more safe. 

[Captain_Slow]

damn, thats brave.

 

does it come in a diesel? 

[Legion]

 

 

I'd like to see these driverless cars testing in rush hour traffic, as well as being tested in rural areas. Have they encountered a pack of cyclists on a blind turn yet? There's still too many untested variables to declare driverless cars superior. Hell, if I remember correctly, the Google driverless car had trouble with a single cyclist at an intersection.

 

 

 

Who knows maybe when they know a machine is behind the wheel cyclists won't be such assholes.

 

I'm not sure how they are in the rest of the world but I've never met anyone as arrogant as a cyclist .

 

Footpath is his, the road is his, Traffic lights don't matter. And pedestrian crossings ah sure we will get across them before the peds reach the other side.

[GlassBomb]

I like this. I can't wait autonomous cars to become plentiful, as they are great for majority of the drivers out there. The drivers that all they are doing is going from their homes to the workplace.

There are of course still a lot of safety concerns with this kind of technology. But we are slowly ironing them out, one by one.

I see self-driving cars becoming the future. And people who lives in cramped cities will figure out subscription programs, so that you just have to press on your smartphone and have an electric self-driving car show up at your location when you need it. You won't have to deal with parking, maintenance, or anything.

But of course. This will not take away the purists out there. That swear by their driving skills and whatnot. Don't worry. Normal cars will stick around for a very long time to come.

[LePawel]

I'm not watching anything.

 

Also, how many self driving cars are out and about in the real world? Not enough to say they're 100% safe.

Well then go ahead and live in 1930s. Are humans 100% safe? There are enough self driving cars on the roads to cover millions of miles without a death to this day.

Not one thing stands in favor of human drivers, which is addressed in the video I mentioned. 

[Whorax]

Well then go ahead and live in 1930s. Are humans 100% safe? There are enough self driving cars on the roads to cover millions of miles without a death to this day.

Not one thing stands in favor of human drivers, which is addressed in the video I mentioned. 

"Live in the 1930s". wat. Fairly certain I'm living in 2015 where people still drive their own cars.

 

And there is the fun factor that comes with driving, apparently all the boring people on this thread don't like having fun. And again, I don't give a shit about your video.

[Voldy21]

Considering that Driverless cars aren't officially a thing yet (they're just about to become a "thing" at best) I will go ahead and doubt you there.

 

I'd like to see these driverless cars testing in rush hour traffic, as well as being tested in rural areas. Have they encountered a pack of cyclists on a blind turn yet? There's still too many untested variables to declare driverless cars superior. Hell, if I remember correctly, the Google driverless car had trouble with a single cyclist at an intersection.

 

Like I said, the human brain is more adaptive than the most powerful computer that currently exists.

Driving is not complex. It doesn't require a mind as complex as a human mind. It's actually really simple and a computer is very good at doing simple things over and over again.

 

Processors can take a lot of calculations and calculate them in a pretty short amount of time. So I'll give you a scenario that represents why driverless cars are almost inherently better. Let's say that a driverless car is in the middle of the road with a car in front, a car behind, and a car to the right but in the blind spot and a car to the left but further up so that you can still change lanes but it's not preferable. Let's also say that we're on the highway going 70-80. Let's say that the car in front stops suddenly and you have a split second decision to go right, left, or stop(or if it's a slow driver they might not be able to react at all but let's ignore that scenario for now). A human would probably just as likely stop or go right as they would consider going left. Probably more so because they guy on the left is pretty close and it would be a tight fit. A driverless car would be able to recognize that there is a car in the blind spot as well as behind you and recognize that it can fit behind the car on the left. Therefore they would be more likely to go left than any of the other scenarios.

 

This is, of course, assuming that the car has decent software and was properly programmed but you can see my point, right? They can see more than humans at once and thus would react better than humans.

 

 

1. I have a right to drive whatever the hell I wan, until the government decides otherwise, which I would fight.

2. The laws against smoking in buildings are based upon bullshit. IF you actually go look at the information on "second hand smoke" you'll see that you'd have to inhale enough of it to essentially be a "first hand" smoker. It's not based upon fact, it's based upon bias.

 

Also, I'd be more than willing to challenge a driverless car to both a race, and a distance test. I might not outdo it, but I know I'd be a match for it. (in case you didn't know, I used to drive for a living).

 

Again, you are not representative of the general human population and they are fundamentally better because they will perform the same every single time of every single day. You might be tired one day or frustrated or angry one day and then perform in a way that endangers other people. Driverless cars won't. Also, sure, let's do a distance test. 24 hours of driving and see who makes the least mistakes. The driverless car or you. 

 

You are not representative of the general population as shown by the fact that driving was your job at one point. That's not the case for many more people. That's why it's your argument does not counter the point that driverless cars are *fundamentally* better. A human can be better but they would have to be above average.

[BloodySinner]

About to go into car crash ? just put vehicle into automatic mode before crash and volvo will take the blame.

 

Never mind the fact that the vehicle's computer will register the time of automation prior to the event of the crash.

 

[LePawel]

"Live in the 1930s". wat. Fairly certain I'm living in 2015 where people still drive their own cars.

 

And there is the fun factor that comes with driving, apparently all the boring people on this thread don't like having fun. And again, I don't give a shit about your video.

Someone is on his period...

Dropping down to your communication level... I don't give a fuck about a fun factor of driving a car if I can reduce accidents significantly and be productive during commute time.

And people will not give a shit about how fun it is to drive once it becomes obvious how bad human drivers are when compared to driverless ones.

Traditional cars will become horse carriages of 21st century.

I'm done wasting my cherry blues on you.

[Whorax]

Someone is on his period...

Dropping down to your communication level... I don't give a fuck about a fun factor of driving a car if I can reduce accidents significantly and be productive during commute time.

And people will not give a shit about how fun it is to drive once it becomes obvious how bad human drivers are when compared to driverless ones.

Traditional cars will become horse carriages of 21st century.

I'm done wasting my cherry blues on you.

You sound like you have anger issues, I recommend seeking out professional help. And you speak like I care about your opinions; I really don't so for the third time or so, I don't care.

 

Also, I don't know what your keyboard has to do with anything in this discussion. So I'm done wasting my Cherry MX Browns on you...I guess that's a cool insult? Lol?