Non car people and autonomous cars - a hypothetical

"TheBaron2112" (TheBaron2112) 05/20/2015 at 20:59 • Filed to: None

1

21

So I was having a discussion on another internet forum regarding autonomous cars.

I’m the only car guy there. So my perspective is... unique, to say the least. The discussion revolved around the possibility that eventually autonomous cars would be the only way to get around on the roads because their advancements in safety would render real cars obsolete and dangerous. Therefore, real cars would be outlawed in the name of safety.

People were generally in favor of this and couldn’t fathom the fact that I’m digging in my heels and refusing to go along with that.

I believe 100% that autonomous cars can provide a safer mode of transport than cars operated by their drivers. But I don’t want that to be the only option. I’ve said repeatedly that I would totally be on board with autonomous cars being ubiquitous so long as drivers had the choice.

This was met with this hypothetical, that I now pose to you, Oppo:

Suppose you are given the ability to dictate US policy with regards to prohibition of of manual driving in public spaces (recreational spaces would continuing to exist or could be created if it was prohibited). To make your decision on whether to prohibit it, you are given a magical oracle that can precisely tell you on average how many additional people will die per year as a result of not prohibiting manual driving (and what percentage they make up of the population that travels in cars). Is there any number/percentage the oracle could give that would cause you to decide to prohibit it? If so, can you give a conservative estimate of what that would be (as in, you certainly would after some threshold)?

My answer was zero. No amount of preventable deaths would lead me to ban cars aside from those that are autonomous. These people then decided I was a heartless bastard.

I went all in and drove my point home. They wanted me to essentially say that I’m trading lives for my hobby. So I did. I hate it when people set traps for you, then act surprised when you give them the answer they want.

Sorry, Oppo. I had to rant.

But I do pose the question. Would you trade lives for your hobby?

MLGCarGuy > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 21:04

1

Here’s how I see it.

For people who don’t enjoy commuting or aren’t comfortable with driving nor public transport, they should buy an autonomous car.

For people who do enjoy cars, make them take a separate driving test in an autonomous environment to make sure they’re capable of truly driving and aren’t just saying they can drive.

BigBlock440 > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 21:06

2

Sure. The planets overpopulated as it is, if some of the dumb ones get weeded out it’s not a bad thing if you look at the big picture.

TheBaron2112 > MLGCarGuy 05/20/2015 at 21:06

1

I agree completely.

The argument being presented to me is that there are deaths caused by the operation of manually operated cars that would not occur in an autonomous car. Would I trade these deaths for my hobby?

The hypothetical presented isn’t a compromise. And it’s gotten me quite worked up.

TheBaron2112 > BigBlock440 05/20/2015 at 21:09

0

I’m not even coming at it from that angle. I’m just pissed they’re looking at life as a balance sheet, and weighing my enjoyment vs. the lives of thousands.

Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 21:09

1

You were presented with the Bush administration version of compromise. Give us everything we want. Once we get it, we can talk about what you want...

mazda616 > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 21:10

0

I’m honestly worried about this. I think about it more than I care to admit. Cars have been my passion for my entire life, and if they’re gone, I don’t know what my main hobby will actually become.

I see it not as a matter of if, but when. :-( Americans are too lazy, have attention spans that are way too short (thanks to tablets and smartphones), and are of course way too stupid to continue not letting a machine do the work for them.

And me? I’ll just be sad someday and will stare longingly at old Car and Driver magazines from the ‘90s.

MLGCarGuy > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 21:11

1

If you have a botched software update then all the autonomous cars go haywire. That’s why manually operated cars still need to exist.

TheBaron2112 > MLGCarGuy 05/20/2015 at 21:13

1

Those things can be fixed. I think autonomous cars, when developed properly, can be as perfect as an ideally operated real car.

TheBaron2112 > mazda616 05/20/2015 at 21:15

1

I’m not necessarily worried about it, since the timeline doesn’t seem to be feasible in my lifetime. And you’re right. It won’t be if, but it will be when. And ‘when’ will be after we’re dead.

But still, I have in mind the future petrolheads and how they will feel if faced with this decision.

Something like this has been on my mind since hearing Red Barchetta by Rush and reading “A Nice Morning Drive” in Road and Track.

Nate-964 > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 21:27

1

I am very worried that manual driving will be banned world wide in our life time.

I sit and ponder trying to figure out how the NRA has basically ensured that Americans will have the ability to own guns.

I am surprised that some organisation related to the car hobby has not arisen. To me it seems that car culture is part of our past time and is generally accepted by most people. I wonder if any organisation will arise to ensure that automobile enthusiasts right to drive will be protected in an autonomous driving future.

TheBaron2112 > Nate-964 05/20/2015 at 21:35

0

Maybe AAA. Maybe some racing orgs. But who knows. The thing we like won’t last forever.

bhardoin > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 21:39

0

Though it pains me to say it, I think your friends are right. In 20-30 years, when autonomous cars have hit their stride, my Z will be a nuisance on the street - it won’t be able to communicate with other cars in a smart grid, costing other people time and money. It will be more likely to injure a pedestrian that makes a dumb mistake. It will burn more gas, and I’ll be more likely to crash it and cause someone else injury. And as much as I love driving on the street, I think it’s better for society as a whole if autonomous cars take over, and I’m instead allowed to take my car to a track, or a backroad that doesn’t see much traffic (I imagine my car will probably be banned on freeways and in town, but trickier backroads will probably have people behind the wheel for a while). Maybe in that future track demand will go up, and tracks will be able to supply fun driving more cheaply than they do today.

And even though that sucks, I know that its probably gonna be my responsibility as a citizen to give that up. There’s gonna be a point where my relative negative external costs outweigh the selfish joys driving gives me - just as my parents’ generation gave up dumping oil down storm drains, shooting pigeons off lamp posts with shotguns, and smoking in bars.

bhardoin > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 22:09

0

Societal living is that balance sheet, isn’t it? Isn’t that why we don’t steal from people even though we get enjoyment out of it? Or why we try to refrain from farting in elevators?

BloodlessWeevil > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 22:10

0

I reject the premise. Autonomous cars will not be safer in every circumstance for the foreseeable future. Throw this at them:

“Computers are imperfect, they often make mistakes that a human never would. The oracle will also tell you how many people will die because they could not override the computer to save themselves. What does that number need to be for you to not ban human control and why?”

The why is important. Some will likely say when that number equals the first number (number saved by manual override equals those saved by not having it.) When they do point out that it means condemning innocents who have no choice in the matter (the ones that would be saved by a manual override) to save people who would have made the choice to drive themselves and accepted the risk that come with it.

Forgetful > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 22:29

0

You can still ride a horse. It’s less safe, less efficient, and less practical, but it’s there for enthusiasts to enjoy. You can even ride them on many roads.

BloodlessWeevil > Nate-964 05/20/2015 at 22:34

1

No, the law ensures the right to own weapons and it has been abridged pretty far. Imagine if you had to ask the Federal government for permission to buy a car. If you don’t have a special license you can only buy certain types of cars (limited to FWD and less than 300 HP.) Some cars are banned entirely (more than 500HP.) Some municipalities or states ban cars entirely as well unless you are connected politically, and in most places you can only drive to your workplace and back home making no stops on the way (you’ll have to come up with some other way to put gas in the tank, sorry.) Oh and one more thing, if you ever get a ticket (parking, speeding, or any other kind) you cannot drive or ride in a car again for life. That’s pretty much where the whole “have the ability to own guns” thing is at the moment.

Sorry, I’m not usually so preachy about it. In all seriousness there are a lot of misconceptions about what laws actually are when it comes to a right that “shall not be infringed.” In comparison, there is no guaranteed right to drive.

BigBlock440 > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 22:50

0

Every hobby kills things, no way around it.

TheBaron2112 > BigBlock440 05/20/2015 at 22:52

0

I would dispute this and present to you philately.

BigBlock440 > Nate-964 05/20/2015 at 22:53

0

There are a few organizations related to the car hobby, SEMA being one. You’re only surprised because you never looked into it and nobody tried to villainize them yet.

BigBlock440 > TheBaron2112 05/20/2015 at 23:01

0

Stamps are used for mail. In order for that hobby to exist, mail has to be delivered, currently by people, people driving on the roads, dying on the roads. Also, in order for mail to exist, it has to be made from trees and other plant matter, plants that give their life so you can study what their remains have become.

BJohnson11 > TheBaron2112 05/21/2015 at 02:16

0

I had a pretty lengthy discussion with some colleagues about what happens when your autonomous car is faced with a “tunnel problem” type of philosophical dilemma. Basically, driving down a narrow road approaching a tunnel, a kid runs out in the street and trips. Your car doesn’t have time to stop itself, and the only options are to mow the kid down or swerve itself into the tunnel wall, potentially killing you. What does the car do, and who decides?

I think the case is extreme, but can be brought down to normal levels by replacing the kid with a couch falling out of a pickup or maybe two options between swerving itself off of the road or swerving into a couple other cars and causing a more widespread accident. It’s tough because I think each human’s instinct would react differently without having a long deliberation, but when a car is getting programmed to respond in a certain way, a conscious choice one way or the other must be made.

Scary.