
The Human Driving Manifesto - atroyn
http://www.thedrive.com/opinion/18952/this-is-the-human-driving-manifesto
======
Svip
Where is the middle ground? In the self-driving car debate, I only see the
extremes of the positions. Surely it will end in a compromise.

I own two classic cars (well, one of them will be soon enough). By virtue of
their age, they are obviously not self-driving and never will be. But I hope
to have them in my possession 30-40 years from now, because I like them very
much.

I believe I like driving, because I only do it for fun. I either take the
train or bike to work, depending on the weather, so I am not beholding to my
cars. Hence why I don't own a modern car.

I recognise that my position is unique, but I would sad to lose my ability to
drive my cars on the road (and my collection may grow in the future). I
understand people's desire for self-driving cars, and I'm glad if they get
them. As long as I can drive my old-timey cars.

Indeed, once there are more electric cars than petrol powered cars on the
roads, getting petrol will be harder. But that's OK, as long as it's still
possible.

My position is; I may not personally need self-driving cars, but I respect
others' desire to want them. But articles like this make me cringe, I hope I
don't need to explain why.

~~~
Spartan-S63
The ideal, here, is that once self-driving cars reach a level where they are
demonstrably safer than human drivers, the issue of liability discourages
continued use of human-driven vehicles.

The way I see it is that once self-driving cars are safe and viable, anytime
an accident involving a human and a self-driving car happens, the human is
automatically assigned fault. It doesn't restrict your freedom to drive the
car, it just makes you think twice since liability is against you should an
accident happen.

This of course, assumes that self-driving cars are capable of driving
perfectly within existing driving laws. If that is true, there's no way a
self-driving car could legally be at-fault for an accident.

------
falcolas
"Manifesto" talk aside, this is the same discussion about automation styles:
Ironman vs. Ultron.

I'm a huge fan of Ironman automation method - augment, not replace the humans
- since it takes the boring and error prone parts away, and utilizes humans
for the edge cases. There's a lot of potential for huge wins for low costs.
And, absolutes aside, that's in line with this article.

The alternative Ultron method - take the humans out entirely - is simply too
expensive and error prone. It's absurdly common to watch entire automated
assembly lines grind to a halt because of corner cases that have to be fixed
by humans. We're seeing the same thing with automated vehicles - when corner
cases are hit, they pull over and signal for human intervention.

So, I guess I agree with the author, though in a less stylish way. Please make
me a better driver; don't remove me from the seat entirely. Just imagine that
fancy VR simulation they showed from the Waymo cars made available as HUD data
for a regular driver. How much would that alone help with safety on the road?

~~~
maxerickson
Where does the Vision fit into it all?

~~~
falcolas
Probably somewhere around the time we can directly connect our brains to
computers, Ghost in the Shell style.

Which, by the way, I'm all for. Keyboards, steering wheels, touch screens...
they are all just too limited for proper human-computer interaction.

------
jonnycomputer
I don't like driving, and I'd rather read the news, read a book, or type out
an email, play the guitar, or for that matter, sip on my favorite cocktail.
And seeing as how many drivers can't put away their cell phones while
operating a motor vehicle, my guess is most people would rather be doing
something else too, at least most of the time. Self-driving cars is my dream
come-ing true.

I'm fine with reserving the right to manually operate a vehicle; too many
situations in which an autonomous vehicle will just not understand what needs
to be done.

I'm rather more concerned that without needing to operate the vehicle, and the
design modification of the car to be more conducive to social activities,
riding in a vehicle will become an even more attractive leisure activity,
clogging traffic while people netflix (& chill) in their pleasure barges.

------
throwaway1748
I doubt such a lobbying effort will be necessary. You can still ride around in
a horse-drawn carriage on most public roads. It seems far-fetched to think
human-powered driving will be made illegal, it's far more likely that most
people will just opt-out of it.

I also expect once autonomous vehicles are the majority of cars we'll see
stricter enforcement of speeding laws. When everyone is speeding because
that's the norm, you don't stand out. When every other car is self-driving at
the limit and you're going 20 over in your Corvette, you stand out like a sore
thumb. The UK already uses average speed cameras. I think the only reason they
aren't widespread elsewhere is simply because many people speed.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>also expect once autonomous vehicles are the majority of cars we'll see
stricter enforcement of speeding laws. When everyone is speeding because
that's the norm, you don't stand out. When every other car is self-driving at
the limit and you're going 20 over in your Corvette, you stand out like a sore
thumb. The UK already uses average speed cameras. I think the only reason they
aren't widespread elsewhere is simply because many people speed.

No, we'll see speed limits that reflect the speeds people actually travel and
probably dynamic speed limits based on the 90th percentile rule (or whatever
best practice rule we come up with to supersede that) instead of our current
system by which speed limits are the max of what the various stakeholders will
ok.

AITaxiCo and AIDeliveryCo are going to lobby the living hell out of reasonable
(where reasonable is not a circular definition involving the current speed
limit) limits because they don't want following the letter of the law to put
them at a competitive disadvantage.

------
thisisit
> From my cold, dead hands.

This makes the whole thing sound like a NRA-style clickbait article and
nothing more.

That said, I am not exactly a fan of how autonomous vehicle scene is unfolding
with lot of investments being made by ride sharing companies. And these guys
have signed a "Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities" [0] which
states:

 _WE SUPPORT THAT AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES (AVS) IN DENSE URBAN AREAS SHOULD BE
OPERATED ONLY IN SHARED FLEETS. Due to the transformational potential of
autonomous vehicle technology, it is critical that all AVs are part of shared
fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Shared fleets can provide more
affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits,
ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals,
and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion,
in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense
urban areas._

[0]:
[https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/](https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/)

------
nkoren
Ugh, no. Human drivers kill about 1.3 million people per year. Since the
second world war, human drivers have killed more people than all wars and
genocides put together. This is personal for me: human drivers have murdered
far too many of my friends. I can't wait for the world to be rid of them.

Oh, wait, at the bottom of the article, now we're saying that we need an NRA-
style lobby for human driving? As in: an ideologically blinkered death cult
beholden to narrow corporate interests (in this case, rather than gun
manufacturers, car manufacturers dependent on personal ownership of vehicles
for their business model) with zero scruples about what sort of body count it
facilitates? Is this a parody then?

------
bhhaskin
The thing that scares me about self driving cars is that you won't be able to
own one. You will have to buy a "plan"/"subscription" or some such nonsense.
Then under the guise of safety they will out-law manual driven cars in order
to increase their market share.

------
cardmagic
How do self-driving cars restrict your freedom? You can still tell it where
you want to go at any time and it will take you. I'm very confused what
freedom I'm losing? Is it to drive over a riverbed if I want to? Never done
that. Not sure I'd want to.

~~~
falcolas
Should give it a try - it's a lot of fun.

To generalize: your lack of interest in an activity is not a good reason to
remove that activity opportunity from everybody. I'm sure you have a lot of
freedoms that you don't take advantage of - should they be removed as well?

~~~
cardmagic
If I tried it, I wouldn't try it with the same car I drive to work with every
day. I'd use a car built to drive over riverbeds. Most people aren't saying
that self-driving cars should take over every kind of vehicle with wheels. I
think the main purpose is to give commuters and truck drivers another option,
not to remove options from people.

~~~
falcolas
> I wouldn't try it with the same car I drive to work with every day.

Most people who do this do indeed use their daily drivers. Most people can't
afford to own a second $30,000 vehicle they can take out only on the weekends.

> I think the main purpose is [...] not to remove options from people.

And I quote: "Google had long distinguished itself from other companies for
committing to the development of a true robot car without a steering wheel or
pedals."

[http://www.businessinsider.com/waymo-ceo-john-krafcik-
self-d...](http://www.businessinsider.com/waymo-ceo-john-krafcik-self-driving-
wheel-house-bill-2017-9)

~~~
cardmagic
So you want to limit my freedom of owning a car without a steering wheel so
that you can protect your freedom of owning one with a steering wheel? That
doesn’t make much sense to me. Just because one company makes a better mouse
trap doesn’t mean that everyone is subjected to only buying the new mouse
trap. Welcome to free market capitalism.

~~~
falcolas
That’s the thing about removing controls: if they are there, you don’t have to
use them. If they aren’t there, you can’t ever use them.

The US hasn’t been purely free market since, well, ever. What’s to stop car
companies from buying legislation to force people into subscription based
vehicles? They already force the use of dealers for buying cars...

~~~
cardmagic
It’s still legal to drive horse and buggies on roads, even though it is 10x
more dangerous for the people driving them. Why haven’t they forced us into
stopping horse and buggies? Should someone have forced cars to not be invented
because they didn’t have horses and if there aren’t horses, you can’t add
horses later? I’ve heard horse and buggies are a lot of fun to ride over
riverbeds too, after all.

------
cryptoz
This entire article is clickbait, where the author wants you to believe he is
being persecuted or something.

> Despite a storm of clickbait media reports, there is still little evidence
> that self-driving cars are safer than humans.

This is the central thesis, but the author made up the idea that we are
supposed to already have these cars that are safer than humans. Nobody thinks
this. _Nobody._ These cars will hopefully exist and hopefully be a lot safer
than humans but they certainly don't exist yet.

The author thinks that killing 30,000 people per year is a-okay and worth it
for the 'freedom'. I disagree. It's not even freedom you get from driving
yourself. You still have to stay on the roads and use a seatbelt and use your
turn signals 100% of the time, etc. I would place a large bet that when the
author drives, he breaks 10-20 safety laws each drive. Everyone does.

We should aim for 0 deaths per year and do everything in our power to get
there. Taking the epic weapons away from people is not a reduced freedom. Self
driving cars do not take away your freedom just as not owning an AR-15 does
not take away your freedom.

The goal of self-driving cars is 0 deaths/year. If that is not your goal of
safety without self-driving cars, then you don't care about safety period. The
selfishness exhibited in "I don't care if more people are dying on average, I
want to drive and you can't take it away from me" is insane.

> If our safety was the experts' first principle, the billions invested in
> self-driving cars would have gone to subsidizing free professional driving
> school, raising licensing standards, and making critical safety technologies
> like seat belts, airbags, ABS and automatic emergency braking (AEB) standard
> as soon as they were invented

No that is _not_ what they would have done. They would be building self
driving cars if they cared about safety.

People are not going to be better drivers if you give them more classes. They
will still get drink and kill 5 innocent people on their way home from the
bar.

~~~
anoncoward111
Sorry, I disagree.

If you want to stop 30,000 people from dying on the roads every year, don't
allow multi-ton vehicles on the road.

If everyone was using motorized bikes, you would have almost no road deaths.
Furthermore, people die choking on food every year. Please don't mandate us to
use self-chewing teeth.

~~~
cryptoz
> If you want to stop 30,000 people from dying on the roads every year, don't
> allow multi-ton vehicles on the road.

Okay, but the idea here is to drop the deaths _without_ impacting the economy
so much that it will tank. Yes we could remove all large vehicles, but then
people would starve and die anyway because they wouldn't get food to grocery
stores fast enough, etc.

