

Vehicular Homicide - smacktoward
http://www.roughtype.com/?p=5390

======
MBlume
What criticism is this article trying to make and how does it relate to the
title and why is it on HN?

~~~
kbenson
I think it's a play on the what the words usually mean, in this case not
homicide _using_ a car, but homicide _of_ the car (concept, as we know it).

Edit: As to your second part, why it's on HN, that's fairly obvious to me.
It's about the change in culture and society that may come about due to
automation of driving through technology, which may be very significant.

~~~
ableal
Shocking, cars on the way to being horizontal elevator cabins.

The driver pedals on the concept are unnecessary, and will be omitted in the
production versions ;-)

------
lotsofmangos
It's almost exactly the same car that the devil drives in Job by Robert
Heinlein.

------
sandworm
As a motorcyclist I am split about these things. I don't want to share the
road, to put my life in the hands of robots. On the other hand these things
will make for great fun on a mountain highway such as, my favorite, BC's sea-
to-sky between Vancouver and Whistler.

What will it take to "brick" this car? An orange cone place in front? Would a
piece of chewing gum stuck over a laser emitter require a trip back to the
dealership? How close to the front bumper does one need to be to trigger
automatic panic braking? Would pulling alongside the car at speed cause it to
voluntarily pull over? These experiments will be fun, at least for those not-
old not-rich people outside the car.

~~~
UrMomReadsHN
>I don't want to share the road, to put my life in the hands of robots.

What? This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Humans are terrible drivers. A
robot doesn't get tired, drunk, spaced out, inattentive, distracted, or
perform dangerous maneuvers or fall asleep at the wheel. They are able to
accurately assess the safest way to drive, humans are terrible at that and
incredibly bad at assessing risk. Robots don't have blindspots or loss of
vision at night. Robots have quicker reflexes and a wider field of view.
Robots don't get road rage. Robots dont get senile. Robots know the rules of
the road. You need little more than a pulse to get a drivers license. I'm
shocked how often licensed drivers get confused by 4 way stops.

Honestly, its terrifying to put my life in the hands of humans. Myself
included, because everyone can make a mistake from time to time.

~~~
sandworm
Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a mechanical system to see me,
identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time not to kill me. The car
in the OP is not one that supplements a driver's vision and reaction time. It
is a system that totally replaces it.

Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an
oncoming car without human supervision? Thousands of times. In all weather
conditions. When the car's systems are 5/10/25 years out of date? That's what
motorcyclists must do at every red light: trust that the car approaching
behind them stops in time.

Pedestrians at crosswalks have the advantage of signing, lights and cross-
streets to alert the system to the possible presence of humans. Motorcyclists
must stand in random places unprotected (ie stop and go traffic).

~~~
scott_s
At the moment, no, I am not willing to do that. Because the technology is not
yet good enough.

But it may be possible for the technology to be that good. Let's assume that
in the future, we have tests after tests showing that the automated systems
have better performance than humans. Then, yes, I would be willing. In that
case, we have two faulty navigation systems, but one out-performs the other.

