
Computer-driven cars will convulse the automotive industry - evo_9
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131130/AUTO01/311300015/1148/AUTO01/Computer-driven-cars-will-convulse-automotive-industry
======
nakedrobot2
There is a hint of what a full society of self-driven cars will be like in
_Rainbows End_ by Vernor Vinge: there are no traffic lights. The cars all
weave through an intersection much like pedestrians do while walking.

The future, at least in terms of the dangers of driving, is bright.

I look forward to the day when every car is a taxi, and the only cars parked
on the side of the road are the ones owned by the very few people who can
still be bothered at all to own a car full-time, which will hopefully be very
few people.

~~~
saraid216
Is the implication here that pedestrians will simply walk into the street at
random and the AIs will handle that? I find myself a little uncomfortable at
the thought, and I'm fairly enthusiastic about driverless cars for most of the
reasons you stated.

~~~
jaggederest
Yes, that's precisely what happens. You'll be given a safe berth, with cars
stopping or avoiding you by at least the distance you could conceivably fall
over.

Personally that's already how I cross the street, and my confidence in human
drivers isn't anywhere near so great.

~~~
dredmorbius
With human drivers you're given a notion of whether or not they've seen you
(they're looking in your direction, the vehicle is slowing, they're motioning
at you to cross or get out of the way, or honking at you). The situation is
somewhat deterministic.

Not perfect by a long shot, but unless automatic vehicles offer some similar
pedestrian signaling capability, there will be issues.

There's also the question of what happens, say, when a vehicle is surrounded
by a crowd of people with ill intent. This happens:

[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Motorcycle-Gang-
Attack-...](http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Motorcycle-Gang-Attack-Dad-
Toddler-Range-Rover-Manhattan-225817761.html)

~~~
omegaworks
>unless automatic vehicles offer some similar pedestrian signaling capability,
there will be issues.

Working on it. [http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427743/how-do-you-
know-...](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427743/how-do-you-know-an-
autonomous-vehicle-has-seen-you/)

------
001sky
I think the market for trucks will be far more disrupted. The idea of having
"drone" containers seems far more easily realized and higher value added than
civilian passenger autos. The average A->B distances are longer (miles/trip),
the routes simpler (turns/mile) and the roads are less complex (fewer on-grade
intersections). It seems an automated "carpool lane" would be a huge benefit.
As would the avoidance of speeding and drowsy driving by semi/lorry drivers.
Furthermore, removing this rolling stock from passenger car rights of way
would itself be an improvement in safety (if for no other reason than >
visibility).

~~~
VLM
An interesting side issue you didn't consider is at least in the initial roll
out phase you simply make an automated "train" with ten trucks, and the lead
truck driven by human (or at least has a human on board).

~~~
huherto
This will save a lot of energy since the drag of the truck in front will suck
the truck behind. Sorry, I lack the technical terms to describe it.

~~~
dredmorbius
The term is "drafting" or "slipstreaming". The concept has been part of the
allure of autonomous vehicle engineering for decades, and is already praticed
by human truck drivers (though they cannot follow as closely as automated
systems would be able to).

I've done it myself in a passenger car on long trips -- once covered most of a
state at high speeds behind a truck who seemed bent on making his schedule.
75+ MPH and my fuel consumption was _well_ below typical for that leg of the
trip.

------
conductor
Computer-driven cars will introduce tons of new hacking possibilites from the
malicious actors, some possible news headlines:

The car unexpectedly accelerated and killed 5 people, an accident or a murder?

A new ransomware demands 1 BTC to start your car

Google keeps all the history of your car's movements

LAPD is testing a special device to remotely stop cars instead of chasing them

~~~
ihsw
Can't forget insurance fraud. I foresee a future where insurance companies
will impose additional fees to cars that are "assisted" rather than fully
autonomous.

What is assisted? A car fitted with the self-driving computer, but rather than
driving the car it instead compares your actions with one the computer would
normally do. What is this comparison for? To determine whether you are a safe
driver -- a Safe Driver Rating (SDR).

Self-driving cars will become the new gold standard for determining who is a
safe driver -- and failing to meet that standard will result in higher
insurance rates.

What does this have to do with malicious hackers? They can fudge the self-
driving computer to silently and gradually increase your insurance rates by
misreporting your SDR.

What about cars that are neither fully autonomous nor "assisted"? Simple: they
don't get built/sold anymore due to being unsafe.

~~~
VLM
One interesting side effect of a safe driver rating is you need to balance the
cost of having to pay higher insurance with having to find a new job.

Or another interesting problem is how do you push a self driving car beyond
its performance boundaries to save your life? "I'm sorry dave, but I can't let
you drive during a hurricane/tsunami warning" "hey car, shut up and drive, the
storm surge is rising and unless you get moving you're about to transform into
a submarine"

If you get fired from your job because your self driving car decided its not
going out in 1 inch of snow, how much do you sue the manufacturer? Or the
other way around, your self driving car permitted you to go out in a 24 inch
blizzard and it got stuck and you died, how much does your estate and
survivors get to sue the manufacturer?" Obviously the proud american tradition
of screw the little guy means the mfgrs can do anything they want, but the PR
implications mean all self driving cars will shut off whenever the chance of
precip is above 0%, or the temp is below 32F, etc. And THATs why I don't want
a self driving car, it'll be useless in order to be legally intrinsically safe
(only valid operating conditions will be 70 degrees, sunny, daytime, etc,
which is about 2 weeks per year where I live.)

~~~
noonespecial
What if your car, networked with all of the other cars in the immediate area,
came to the conclusion that a fatal collision was unavoidable unless one car
(your car) purposely veered over the side of a bridge... The good of the many
outwieghs the good of the few, and you're the few?

~~~
dandrews
Unless you paid extra for the level-2 protection package. Then the network has
to select a level-1 vehicle to go over the edge.

~~~
noonespecial
That really is a terrifying thought if you follow it. It won't be so blatant.
Probably more like "everyone knows that Volvo AI's get in way less fatal
crashes than "cheaper" Chevy AI's".

Considering human nature, I don't think I can imagine a way where this _won
't_ happen on some level or another.

------
tobiasu
Something completely lost on tons of nerds seems to be that people genuinely
enjoy operating their cars (and motorcycles).

~~~
saraid216
Remember when people genuinely enjoyed riding horses?

~~~
gaius
This is different. This is a horse you ask nicely to take you there but once
you're locked inside it can take you anywhere. The issue is not safety, it's
_control_.

~~~
leoc
Horses have control issues as well. And a properly designed autonomous car is
likely to have a manual override or emergency stop, things for which there are
no good equivalents on a horse.

~~~
pretense
The manual override for a horse is a bullet in the brain. Why do you think
cowboys carried six shooters?

------
salient
Right now the scariest part about self-driving cars is the corporations making
them or governments having access to remotely-controlled "kill-switches" for
these cars. In such a future you wouldn't need to "cut the breaks" to "make it
look like an accident" anymore, and doing it like this would be far easier, if
strong security measures aren't considered from the start.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Yours is a paranoid theory. This future you're worried about is just as
possible with elevators and yet we don't see it happening. It'll be just as
difficult to get away with because of how unusual accidents will be with self
driving cars.

~~~
dredmorbius
Elevator accidents are rare (hence: suspicious), people transit them for brief
periods of time, usually in the company of others, and it's difficult to known
when your intended target is in the elevator to attack them. If you're going
to target someone via an elevator attack, you've likely got far more effective
and specific vectors which would work.

Cars tend to be assigned to specific individuals (permanently, on an ongoing
occasional basis for car-share programs, or for a trip duration in the case of
dispatched livery) and, well, accidents happen, even with automation (other
vehicles, mechanical failures, road or environmental conditions). Moreover, if
your intent is to convey someone somewhere, it's a lot easier to do this via
an automobile (which can travel anywhere on a paved road and non
inconsiderable options on unpaved roads) than in an elevator, which, with the
exception of Mr. Wonka's design, tend to follow a rather predictable and
limited course.

If I were in charge of threat assessment for a VIP/HNWI, I'd very much take
this threat into consideration.

------
sfbsfbsfb
It seems like these cars will have to be operable in both the manual and self
driving modes. Otherwise the car will become much less flexible.

Examples: 1) immediate unplanned stop at a yard sale 2) drive "off road" to
get around an obstruction 3) dealing with unstructured parking situations 4)
avoiding emergency stops in unsafe locations 5) driving through puddles (is it
2 inches or 2 feet deep?) 6) etc.

And for some significant transition period the road will be populated by both
manual and computer driven cars.

How does the hybrid system work? Won't many people take advantage of "dumb"
cars. How would you drive if you knew many cars were computer controlled.
Would people figure out how to "game" the known computer driving rules? I
don't pull out in front of cars that are too close because the human might not
stop and hit me. Maybe I don't worry about it if I know the computer is in
control of the other car.

Long haul freeway driving does not seem too complicated. But what about high
density suburban and city driving?

~~~
icebraining
1 is just a matter of allowing the user to issue real-time commands ("Car,
stop here", "Car, go park"). 3 is less of an issue when you can get off and
let the car park itself wherever it wants.

2, 4 and 5 are a matter of smarter algorithms, but I doubt they won't be able
to do all that way before they become commonplace. Particularly 4, since you
can't reasonably expect people to have to take control to avoid an accident.
Even professional pilots can struggle with that, let alone regular drivers.

~~~
ams6110
There is currently a lot of talk in the professional pilot community that
automation has reached the point where pilots are increasingly unable to fly
manually. So when the automation fails, they can't handle it.

------
swayvil
fta : "The avoidance of accidents will cut insurance costs".

Ha ha. No. Any freed-up cash will result in an increase in gas-prices, taxes
or whatever. The cost living will continue to be just a bit more than you can
afford no matter what. Any "avoidance of accidents" will just translate into
profits for somebody, not you. The cost-environment is entirely artificial and
is designed to exploit you right down to the bones and gristle. You don't get
to enjoy the fruits of progress except in ways that make you a more efficient
worker. Sorry.

~~~
cortesoft
My cost of living is quite a bit less than I can afford. I am not sure what
you mean.

~~~
alan_cx
Let them eat cake, right?

~~~
cortesoft
No, but the comment above made it sound like the situation he described
applies to everyone. I am not crazy wealthy, but by being smart with my money
and forgoing some things I can live within my means comfortably. I am sure
there are many people in my situation, contrary to the statement I was
responding to.

------
richforrester
>and they will be ubiquitous by 2025.

aaaand you've lost me. Apologies for the snide remark, but there's no way
we'll be there by that time. The industry won't let us.

Apologies for not having much reason in this post, and only stating a personal
opinion without much detail to back it up, but I'm just curious to see if
there's anyone that feels the same.

~~~
richforrester
Elaborating;

The optimal (most efficient, safest) way to get computer-controlled cars to
work;

\- All drivable areas mapped (Not just the roads - EVERYTHING, since you might
want to go off-road. What if; landslide, earthquake, someone digs a hole
somewhere, leaves a brick on the street, etc.)

\- Knows where everyone is (going) at all times (privacy issue)

\- Has everyone on the same system (not happening within 12 years)

Since I don't see these three happen, they have to be dealt with somehow. The
bracketed issues are fully remedied only by the solutions written before them.
Anything less will be fighting the symptoms, not the disease, and be a never-
ending battle.

There are so many obstacles to be overcome, so much politics to be done, so
many technical challenges, so much bureaucracy ... 12 years really isn't that
long.

~~~
maxerickson
The actual bar for deploying self driving cars is that they are safer than
some (large?) portion of humans that we already allow to drive. We don't have
to do it the safest way or the most efficient way.

I agree that ubiquity is unlikely, but because of cost.

(A high end Mercedes can already keep itself in a lane, slow down the cruise
for a slower vehicle and will override the driver trying to crash into things.
These systems are environmental, they don't depend on detailed maps.
[http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/benz/safety](http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/benz/safety)

And they are one of several, not way out in front.)

------
ricardobeat
> Railroads, bus companies and short-haul airlines will suffer. If you can
> move from your home to your destination, door-to-door in the comfort of your
> car, who’s going to take the train, bus or plane?

Would that be significant? Costs, travel times, risk of accidents/theft,
failures, would still be much higher. Not to mention it is absurdly less
efficient to travel alone in a car.

I imagine hopping onto a car to the train station, and having another one
waiting for you right at the arrivals gate will be the preferred mode of
travel.

~~~
ams6110
Have you ever taken a long-distance rail trip in the USA? Outside of a few
corridors in the northeast, it's a slow, breakdown-ridden nightmare.

~~~
justincormack
Maybe the OP was talking about the rest of the world, where trains work pretty
well in general and this service might work.

------
manmal
I imagine that this would make the modularization of cars more feasible, or
even necessary. E.g. a long-distance travel power train module could provide
enough juice for driving cross-country (e.g. on holidays), while the commuter
power train module would be lighter and less costly to rent. The car could
drive itself to a hotspot where such modules are interchanged on demand. This
would of course only make sense if there still is something like car ownership
- if cars are only rented from central entities, then this entity would just
send out specialized vehicles instead.

However, I'm not quite sold that people will give up on car ownership. Yes,
there's public utilities and public transport, which is not up for individual
ownership. But a car in the sense that we have it now is something more
personal than a train cabin - a car's body is very close to us and we touch it
all the time; we leave personal belongings there; and there is something to
the fact that this car is always in front of my house/appartment, especially
in emergency situations. This last point could be amended with emergency cars
which are available to each apartment block, with which driving is just more
expensive. Imagine crying "Help! I need a car!" and an emergency unit comes
right around the corner and takes you wherever you want.

~~~
trafficlight
I don't think we'll willingly give up on owning cars. Rather, it'll become way
too expensive for the average person to own one.

Once self-driving cars show a marked decrease in road accidents, insurance
prices will rise.

Car-as-a-Service companies will be created, making the cost of riding in a
private car much cheaper than outright owning one. I'm already intending to
start a car service as soon as the first cars are available.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
>Once self-driving cars show a marked decrease in road accidents, insurance
prices will rise.

Huh?

Edit: Just to be clear: The world you describe should see incuranse rates for
self-driving cars markedly lower, with rates for driver-driven cars probably a
bit lower (than current).

~~~
toomuchtodo
Insurance costs for human-driven vehicles will rise.

~~~
cortesoft
I don't think that is necessarily true.. The cost of insurance is based on the
average expected payout per customer... I don't think the average payout will
increase, as being a human driver won't suddenly become MORE dangerous, at
worst it will stay the same.

~~~
toomuchtodo
But what happens when the average expected payout is expected to go down?
Insurance companies will expect lower loss ratios from self-driven cars, so
doing something as dangerous as driving your own vehicle will carry a premium.
Its very similar to how your health insurance premiums are much higher if
you're a smoker. You _can_ smoke, but you're going to be charged for this
unnecessary, harmful action.

~~~
cortesoft
Oh, I have no doubt that driving your own car will be more expensive than
taking a self-driving car. My point was that it wouldn't be more expensive
than it currently is to have insurance (when everyone is driving their own
car)

------
dsugarman
I wonder how the economics of owning cars will change when everything is
computerized. In logistics (specifically trucks), it would incredibly reduce
the total cost of shipping if you eliminate Less-than Truck Loads (LTLs) and
empty back hauls. I imagine it is similar with transporting people, if there
was a "taxi" like company that could maximize the use of an automated car, the
total amount of cars necessary in the world would go dramatically down. Right
now most cars spend most of their lives idle. Great side effects include no
auto insurance and much less emitted greenhouse gasses.

The number of millennials buying cars is already extremely low, computerized
cars would most likely continue to reduce the number of new car owners.

------
jleyank
Unless these car systems are programmed at the level of rigor of the Space
Shuttle or other "screw up and they all die" environments, the only group
that's going to "convulse" from computer-driven cars will be lawyers. And
they'll convulse laughing. Is this how it should be, no. But it's how it is in
the US at the moment, possibly in other countries as well.

As people mention, if they don't behave as the rider wants or if they can't
deal with unexpected situations (or mechanical failures) or if they're
required to be always-connected and the net goes down… And I'm sure all sorts
of privacy types would love being carted about with no control on their
environment. Unless the net connection's also amazingly robust, the computer-
driven kidnapping possibilities are endless.

Oh, I didn't think computer vision's a solved problem… It's easy to lose the
GPS signal in cities, and you can probably jam or spoof it without too much
difficulty. Doubt cities are going to spend lots of $$ installing all sorts of
"helpers" to deal with all that rebar.

------
quertaciousness
Imagine having your car drive off and park itself somewhere. You don't even
need to know where.

And there are wider and more fundamental social benefits. City centres will
become pleasant places to walk in. Cleaner air, less noise and less chance of
being run over. Another example, _children_ will play outside more, rather
than being confined indoors as they increasingly have been.

~~~
krapp
>Imagine having your car drive off and park itself somewhere. You don't even
need to know where.

Sounds like a car thief's dream.

~~~
VLM
Or just the average meth head doing smash and grabs.

------
jdhendrickson
An aspect of this that I have yet to see examined is the rapid decrease in
paint and body repair, as well as replacement parts needed on both a
mechanical and cosmetic front. Many mechanical failures are due to driver
error. Once again shrinking the pool of skilled manual labor with no new
industry for the workers to transition into.

------
michaelfeathers
The thing that the article didn't touch on was the fact that many
municipalities derive significant income from fines related to parking and
traffic violations. It will be a big transition for them also.

------
infinotize
I don't want a computer driven car.

------
huevosabio
There seems to be a lot of excitement about self-driven cars, but somehow,
except for a handful of local lines, there has been no real automation on the
operation of trains, even if they are much easier to make completely
autonomous. How are self-driven cars not going to face the same fate as self-
driven trains?

~~~
hrkristian
Except trains are largely autonomous, it's about wanting a human element in
the operation, not requiring them. I see the same applying to a self-driven
car, the human element is always present there in the form of passengers, who
undoubtedly will be able to assume control if need be, that is how the Google
cars are designed.

~~~
loup-vaillant
I have discussed with guys doing train software for a living:
[http://prover.com/](http://prover.com/) From their experience, automating
trains in an otherwise human environment is very hard. Probably as hard as
automating cars.

I expect the ubiquitous automation of trains at around the same time at the
ubiquitous automation of cars.

~~~
picea
The control of the train itself is easy. Simulations abound for this purpose.
The GE's and Siemons of this world wouldn't hesitate to implement them if
there weren't other significant rail context specific issues, such as the
human environment comment above. The difference is that it's not a human vs
human driver problem but a schedule design and human making bad scheduling
decisions now that the trains are running late, implementation problem.

Furthermore, train drivers are cheap (compared with other infrastructure
investments) and relatively efficient as they can be skilfully taught to drive
according to a plan (compared with your fellow road commuters). Without other
investments to tell the driver or the computer that they can drive
faster/closer to the train in front at most railways are only likely to see
efficiency gains (lower power/diesel usage) but struggle to drive those trains
to denser schedules. It will happen for non-capacity reasons such as inter
network usage, and safety to prevent trains from speeding around curves and
falling off.

I expect the challenge will ease partly due to implementing automation of the
management to provide safety at increased traffic densities and provide online
decision support analysis. Later versions of ETCS could an example of part of
that:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System)
Example of some of the budgets involved:
[http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/news/ten...](http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/news/ten-
t-corridors_en.htm))

Once a future version of that is done (ATMS in Australia for example),
driverless tech will be much closer to being the low hanging fruit.

------
vl
>Congestion avoidance will speed traffic and save fuel too.

Perhaps we live in different worlds, in my world self-driving cars will create
more traffic jam, lead to higher road-use taxes and to harsher economic times
due to people in trucking/delivery/cab driving losing jobs.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Traffic jam: the infrastructure may eventually change. Have a first car drive
to to a nearby train or subway station, and a second car to your destination
from the train. In the meantime, you may have more traffic jam.

Energy: when you don't need to own your car, you can use the best car for the
job. A commuting car doesn't need to be able to carry 5 people around. It can
be much smaller. Again, the transition period likely won't look good.

Harsher economic times: this is good old technological employment, where
productivity rises faster than demand. My 2 cents: self-driving cars _will_
significantly contribute to technological unemployment, and that's _good_ ,
provided we manage it well. An obvious measure would be to generalize a 32
hours work-week, over 4 days. It would mean less unemployment and less
overwork. Workload will reduce anyway. We might as well share this reduction,
instead of giving it all to the unemployed.

------
vincie
Yeah, but they are still just cars. They will still need valuable real-estate
for roads and parking and storage. What these are starting to sound like are
trains and buses, which have existed for hundreds of years.

~~~
discodave
No. A self driving car can move itself somewhere where real estate and parking
are freely available and cheap. Also, if people can utilize them like taxis
then the total number of cars registered at any one time can drop
dramatically.

The difference between a self-driving car and a bus/train is that the car goes
wherever you want, just like a manual car.

~~~
krapp
What leads you to believe the owners of those properties or law enforcement
will allow self-driving cars to park themselves just anywhere?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
The cost for parking will of course be limited as otherwise you could simply
send the car out to drive around the block until you're ready to leave. That
may not provide a restrictive limitation but it will be a limit in some way.

I'm now imagining huge traffic jams caused on purpose to enable electric
vehicles to crawl around the city for several hours to avoid paying massive
parking costs.

~~~
krapp
I can easily imagine cities mandating autonomous vehicles having to pay
(automatically I guess) some kind of 'congestion' fee after driving a certain
number of miles without a passenger or without covering any real distance.

------
tspike
As pointed out elsewhere in the thread, if computer driven cars become
ubiquitous, insurance rates on person driven cars will become prohibitively
high or the act of driving a car on public roads will be banned outright.

As someone who enjoys nothing more than riding my motorcycle on mountain road
trips, I can't help but dread that. The privacy and liberty implications make
me uneasy as well, in much the same way as the NSA's overreach.

~~~
shalmanese
Why would insurance become prohibitively high? Insurance is priced at the mean
probability of getting into an accident * mean cost of restitution from an
accident + insurance risk premium. I can't see self driving cars measurably
affecting any of these numbers upwards significantly. Especially not by the
factor of 10 it would require to make insurance prohibitively expensive.

~~~
dredmorbius
Low-n probabilities become harder to assess, so if human-controlled vehicles
are really rare, risks might be hard to assess.

How human drivers interact with otherwise automated traffic flows might
similarly increase risks. Much as largely horse-drawn or bicycle traffic is
generally pretty safe, but mixed-mode traffic with cars, trucks, busses, etc.,
tends to produce (often fatal) accidents.

------
frogpelt
Convulse = disrupt, right?

