

Self-driving cars could save more than 21,700 lives, $450B a year - dsleno
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9243518/Self_driving_cars_could_save_more_than_21_700_lives_450B_a_year
I&#x27;ll buy a self driving car if they let me sleep in the backseat.
======
milesf

      Of course, many such benefits may not be realized until high 
      [numbers of self-driving vehicles] are present
    

Insurance will drive the adoption of self-driving vehicles. If you can buy a
vehicle that statistically won't get into an accident, it will be cheaper to
insure.

~~~
ams6110
It will have some effect, but insurance is a fairly small piece of the total
cost of ownership of a car. It will be interesting to see if the cost of all
the extra mechanisms and electronics to make a self-driving car are offset by
lower premiums over the expected period of ownership.

~~~
milesf
Small? I pay over $1000 a year for insurance up here in Canada, and keep my
vehicles for more than 10 years. That's a good chunk of the cost of a vehicle.

~~~
001sky
_[http://www.edmunds.com/tco.html](http://www.edmunds.com/tco.html) _

~~~
ams6110
Interesting, I picked what I thought would be a "typical" car (Ford Focus
sedan) and it shows the insurance getting more expensive as the car gets
older. That's exactly the opposite of my experience with any car I've ever
owned.

I'm also reminded why I drive old cars that are cheap to insure. My insurance
costs are a fraction of what that page shows.

------
ableal
1\. Car design, interiors: get rid of pedals and steering wheel, have a touch
screen (possibly your phone) for communication. Cross an elevator with a tiny
lounge, have a single central sliding door or whatever.

2\. Insurance companies: basically, they operate on a margin over the volume
of business. Which will go drastically down.

3\. Switch over: I'll bet it will be more sudden than anticipated. Think "cash
for clunkers", "buckle up your safety belt" and "dont drink and drive"
programs all rolled up in one and magnified tenfold. Anything to get the
murderous unsafe machines off the roads.

4\. The smug, withering, contempt of news writers in twenty years will be
something to behold: how could those primitives allow themselves that awful
road carnage for so long?

------
EGreg
I am more worried about pollution.

Hopefully the self driving cars will be re-used like driverless Uber cabs.
That would reduce the unsightly clutter on so many American streets,
colloquially known as "parked cars" and alleviate congestion on city streets,
much of which comes from cars circling around the block "looking for a spot to
park".

Sure, it would cut into the revenues of parking lots and car manufacturers.
But IMHO no one has done more to pollute the environment than the latter. The
number of people on the planet has increased and - even as Europe cuta down on
its car population thanks to the high price of petrol - we US folk continue to
purchase our gas guzzlers and have a car culture in many cities. Some like LA
are perpetually covered in smog, so we can see the effects of this car
culture.

Thankfully, after decades of polluting the environment for our individual
joyrides, things are changing - the younger generation isn't into owning cars
as much, and self drivi g cars are on the way. An unfortunate victim of this
trend will be the venerable macho tradition of the man picking the lady up in
his OWN shiny ride, which he drives. Now it will be about renting the car for
the occasion, and both occupants can interact with each other while the car is
in motion.

In short:

    
    
      Less pollution
      Less congestion
      Less wasting time looking for parking
      More equality between sexes in terms of driving
      Less unsightly clutter on streets
      Less revenues from car manufacturers from producing CARS,
      so they can focus on recurring revenues (eg renting stuff
      inside their fleet)
    

Hopefully this will lead to a more sustainable form of transportation.

------
neals
I think "not owning" a car is going to be a big thing. Car sharing even more
so.

I used to be one of those people that would never ever give up his car. Giving
up my freedom and pinning me to this city? Never.

After having my car broken into and vandalized a couple of times added to the
insane cost of parking where I live, I did eventually give up my car 1 year
ago.

I now use a car "sharing" service where a company owns 100's of car throughout
the country, all bound to their own (extremely convenient) parking spot. I
reserve the car 1 minute in advance, open it up with my phone and drive.

The best thing is: It's not my car.

I don't care what happens to it. I just leave it at its little spot after I'm
done and I forget about it. No maintenance, hardly ever have to fill it up
with gas, billing takes place at the end of the month.

Now imagine this car not having that parking spot but being automated and just
picking me up from my doorstep. Not having to put it back into it's designated
spot. I would feel pretty awesome about that.

~~~
drcross
My friend recently sold his car in central London and is moving to Zip car and
the alternatives when he and his wife need one. The running costs,
maintenance, insurance and parking involved with it didn't add up. We are
seeing drastic changes in the transport industry.

------
pcurve
The article interchangeably uses "self-driving car" and "autonomous car", but
it doesn't clarify whether the benefit calculations include completely
unmanned usage.

A car that drives by itself with passengers in it, is one thing. But an
unmanned vehicle takes the concept to a whole new level.

It will have an incredibly deflationary effect on the economy. Trucking is a
$600 billion business. It employs 3 million people. Over a million of them are
long-haul truckers. And that's not counting non-driving support staff. With
self-driving trucks, 30% reduction in headcount isn't unrealistic.

That's just one example.

It's a scary prospect for many people.

~~~
pdkl95
This is yet another example of how we are /very/ rapidly plunging (like it or
not) into a future where our amazing advances in technology make most of what
we consider "work" obsolete and unnecessary. In a sense, we (as a species)
kind of won that "life" game.

Right now a large percentage of society is doing "work" that isn't
particularly complicated or difficult. I's _necessary_ , of course, but it's
the kind of thing that we are - with increasing frequency - starting to think
we really should take the very small shell script[1] option.

Many obvious references could be made to Marx at this point, of course. If you
want to. I prefer, on the other hand, the idea that our economy is simply
taking on some Star Trek-style, post-scarcity traits.

Technology can never replace /all/ jobs, of course. More precisely, Gödel
showed us there's always more complicated, more interesting tasks out there.
The tasked involved in maintaining the _baseline needs_ a person has in life
(food; shelter, basic health-care) and even a few of the "luxuries"
(transportation, communication, the general-purpose computer), though, are
going to simply be _solved problems_.

Autonomous cards are indeed going to be a very scary prospect, and it isn't
(primarily) because of any safety concern. The changes to society this
technology will cause (such as those 3M truck drivers) is pure, distilled
terror for anybody that wants to hold on to current social model.

Worse yet - the self-driving car is just the first of many technologies that
are happening right now. Millions of unemployed drivers is nothing compared to
/billions/ of bureaucrats, low-level factory workers, fast-food/walmart-type
workers, and middlemen of all sorts and the like being made obsolete.

Hmm... what was it that Marx said about revolution?

We better stat getting ready for these changes in the meantime. "The avalanche
has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote."[2]

[1] [http://www.nerdyshirts.com/shell-script-funny-t-
shirt](http://www.nerdyshirts.com/shell-script-funny-t-shirt) No store
endorsement (good or bad) intended; the link was an arbitrary google pick for
that t-shirt.

[2]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60loeoblu0M](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60loeoblu0M)

edit: link formating

------
AnthonyMouse
The questions the article asks are extremely poor.

> Could automakers prevent hackers from getting into onboard computers?

"Hackers." Modifying their own cars. Terrible.

> And who would be liable in the event of an accident in a self-driving car?

The insurance company.

~~~
ams6110
Insurance companies are not liable, the owner of the car would be liable, just
as he is if he lets someone borrow his car and that person crashes it. He
carries insurance against that risk, but the liability is his.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
What makes you think the owner of the vehicle is liable for a crash caused by
some third party driver?

In any event, the point is that the question of liability is both irrelevant
(because insurance company will be the one paying for the loss in the large
majority of cases in any event) and obvious (because these are for the most
part well-established questions). It's not like a self-driving car is the
first instance in the history of time that some piece of property could cause
damage in the absence of human action.

~~~
ams6110
_What makes you think the owner of the vehicle is liable for a crash caused by
some third party driver?_

Because they are? While there may be some variation by state, if we look at
California law[1]: Every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible
for death or injury to person or property resulting from a negligent or
wrongful act or omission in the operation of the motor vehicle, in the
business of the owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same
with the permission, express or implied, of the owner.

So if I lend you my car, and you crash it causing damage, then I am liable.
Likewise, it seems to me, if I allow my self-driving car to drive home and it
crashes into another car causing damage or injury, then I am liable. In
general, the owners of things are liable for damages caused by those things.

The question of liability is not irrelevant, because insurance does not
transfer liability it transfers a quantified, limited amount of risk. If I
cause damage in excess of my insurance coverage, I am still liable for the
damage and I'll have to make up the difference.

1\.
[http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d09/vc17150.htm](http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d09/vc17150.htm)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The California law strikes me as unreasonable. It's an example of the law
being expedient rather than just: The person who should be responsible is the
person who perpetrated the "negligent or wrongful act or omission in the
operation of the motor vehicle." But if that person has had to borrow a car
then perhaps they don't have any money, so plaintiffs want to take it out of
the pocket of someone who we know has at least enough money to buy a car
notwithstanding their apparent lack of any wrongdoing. The just outcome when
the owner lends a vehicle to someone who is not known to be irresponsible is
for the driver to be liable and, if the driver may not have enough money to
pay the damages and we want the injured party to be made whole, the government
should establish a requirement to carry sufficient insurance.

> In general, the owners of things are liable for damages caused by those
> things.

In general the owners have to have been at least negligent to be liable. And
the cases to the contrary are similarly contemptible instances of injustice
where the lawmakers see sympathetic plaintiffs and nearby deep pockets from
which to filch coins and for political reasons (in the case of legislatures)
or because they are restricted to deciding a single case (in the case of
judges) are more inclined to impose liability in innocent bystanders than set
out a requirement for parties to insure against losses incurred through the
acts of culpable but insolvent third parties.

> The question of liability is not irrelevant, because insurance does not
> transfer liability it transfers a quantified, limited amount of risk. If I
> cause damage in excess of my insurance coverage, I am still liable for the
> damage and I'll have to make up the difference.

But that isn't the common outcome. The common outcome for a self driving car
is for there not to be a collision. In the rare case of a collision, the
common outcome is for there to be insurance which covers the damages. In the
rare case the insurance is insufficient, the common outcome is for the vehicle
owner to be insolvent (because owners with wealth to protect will tend to
carry larger amounts of insurance).

If you want to be pedantic, the question of who has liability _is_
complicated. But in the very large majority of cases the relevant question of
who pays for the damages is simple: Cars are required by law to be insured and
the insurance company pays. And if that _isn 't_ the common case then it's a
strong argument for increasing the legally mandated minimum amount of
insurance.

~~~
sokoloff
The state mandated minimums are laughably low:
[http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/vehicleratings/a/blautomi...](http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/vehicleratings/a/blautominimum.htm)

~~~
maxerickson
They are scaled to the assets most people need to protect, not the nominal
liability they might incur.

------
j2d3
Car makers fear and will do whatever they can to stop autonomous cars as they
represent an existential threat to their business. We will need an order of
magnitude fewer cars in a world of cars-aas, on demand cars... it blows away
the entire industry. .. People are, I think, underestimating just how sweeping
the shift would be once it actually gets fully underway. It is not an
incremental change... It's like the shift from horse and Carriage to autos...
That big or bigger

~~~
stormbrew
So far they don't seem to be doing much to stop it, but in the end they won't
have a choice either way.

Anti-car lobbyists in the dawn of the car era got ridiculous laws about having
someone walk in front of the car with a flag put on the books in many places
and it still didn't stop car adoption.

~~~
j2d3
So far there's nothing to stop!

------
aptwebapps
At some point in the future, someone who decides to drive manually and gets in
an accident may be liable for much more than they are now.

~~~
ams6110
How so? Why would they ever be liable for more than actual damages?

~~~
aptwebapps
Because they had a presumably safer alternative available. It might be
construed as negligence. I'm not making a judgement one way or the other about
it. I just think it's likely to happen.

------
mercuryrising
I see a couple of extremely powerful advantages to having a self driving car.

Your family only needs one car. You go to work at 8, and your kids go to
school on the way so you drop them off. You get to work at 8:15, the car drops
you off and heads back home. Your wife heads to work when the car gets back at
8:35, she gets there at 8:45. Your kids get off school at 3, but they have an
after school activity so they let the car know it can charge up until 3:30,
when it comes to pick them up. It drives there, picks the kids up at 3:45,
gets back at 4, drives back to pick you up, brings you back home, drives to
pick your SO up at 5, and by the time your SO gets home you have dinner ready.

If you're a single person you could probably split the car 5 ways with your
friends. You could probably make a lot of money if you make an app that says
"Pick me up here, my current GPS location, and drive me to work 15 minutes
away at 8:00 AM every weekday. Bring me from work at 4:30 to a destination of
my choosing after work". You could extremely accurately predict the price of
transit, you know the probability of accidents. It's cheaper than any taxi,
it's convenient.

Few accidents, no traffic jams, courteous to drivers, no speeding or parking
tickets (unless you 'opt in' to speed), leisure, take a nap on the way to and
from where you're going. The cars return to 'base' which is a parking lot that
has a roof outfitted with solar energy, allowing the cars to store energy
during the day. When cars weren't being used, if they still have juice, they
either share the energy with the other cars that returned, or they compensate
for the lack of renewable production at night. Some cars are 'regimented',
where they follow the same pattern every day of the week. How much energy they
use is known, they know how much energy they need to start the day with, and
how much they can contribute back to the grid. There's other cars that are
free runners that are always kept charged in case they need to drive to
somewhere 4 hours away.

It'd be a little bit of an inconvenience to move things, but If you wanted to
go from city A to city B, but needed to recharge halfway, you could just jump
out and jump into another car at the charging station. NFC to verify who you
are, grab your things and go. When you're driving towards the recharging
station, it knows what music you have playing, what temperature everything is
at, it preheats or precools the car for you - to ensure that swapping cars
doesn't feel like swapping cars. Maybe you go to the bathroom at the rest
stop, and when you come out the car is ready to go with all your belongings
swapped. Put a little container in the middle that you can stash stuff in,
just grab that when you change cars.

And carpooling - if you have 10 people that go to to work 15 minutes away, get
some sort of carpool system going. First person gets on, the car drives to the
next house, waits 2 minutes for the person to come, if they do great, if not
they take off towards the next house. You say what time you want to be picked
up, and a time within 10,20,30 minutes that you'd like to get there. Cheaper
service if you have a bigger window of availability. Car texts you when it's
outside (you can follow it on the map once it engages your current location).

I like thinking about electric cars.

~~~
tednaleid
I think it's even better than this. A family doesn't need one car, it needs
zero cars, it just needs to be able to use one or more cars on demand.

The average family uses their car probably less than 10% of the time. The rest
of that time could be used by others.

Once self-driving cars are ubiquitous, I expect that an Uber-like service will
be the norm. You either subscribe or rent per trip and schedule when and where
you want to be picked up.

The service you subscribe to has a fleet of cars and knows when people want to
be picked up and where they want to be dropped off, as well as whether you're
willing to carpool on the way (for a discount). They can optimize the
scheduling of their fleet in the same way that FedEx and UPS optimize their
driving routes now.

The future is going to feel a little strange and I can't wait.

~~~
malandrew
Yeah, the optimal solution for society involves not owning cars at all. An
individually owned car moving around between a small web of trust such as a
family, is more likely to make empty trips than a car that drops people off
and can pick up the closest person that needs its services.

I hope we one day see a future where you will only be allowed to own a vehicle
for inter-city and rural travel. Suburbs and cities should all be serviced by
one collectively fleet for all citizens of that city.

------
001sky
_Self-driving cars could save more than 21,700 lives, $450B a year_

Until they get spoofed. That will be fun.

link to paper: [https://www.enotrans.org/wp-
content/uploads/wpsc/downloadabl...](https://www.enotrans.org/wp-
content/uploads/wpsc/downloadables/AV-paper.pdf)

~~~
TheEzEzz
If by spoofing you mean holding up a stop sign, I don't see this as a problem.
Google's cars use Bayesian reasoning. There are many additional pieces of
information for the car to draw on that should outweigh the evidence of the
stop sign:

* a Google car will have been on that road before (many times) and never seen a stop sign (and Google can probably tap into the government data for new stop sign installments anyway)

* looking at a map the car can establish what the prior probability of a stop signing being there is (probably low if it's not an intersection)

* the car can look at cars in front of it and observe what they are doing

Beyond this a simple look ahead will solve the problem: the car can
extrapolate what will happen if it does or does not stop. If stopping suddenly
at the stop sign means causing a rear end accident, but not stopping at the
sign has no negative effects (because there is no cross traffic), then the car
can safely ignore the sign, especially if it has assigned a non-negligible
chance to the sign being fake.

~~~
seiji
I think you're over-nerding it here.

 _Google 's cars use Bayesian reasoning._ — How does that change anything?
What's an alternative to "bayesian reasoning?"

 _Google can probably tap into the government data for new stop sign
installments anyway_ — such a thing (an accurate government database of new
stop signs) does not exist.

 _the prior probability of a stop signing being there_ — scenario: a
construction worker with a rotating STOP/SLOW hand sign during road work. Or,
manual traffic overrides with police standing in the road with hands up or
hands waving to manually control traffic.

 _the car can look at cars in front_ — assumes said cars exist and the motion
of forwardness is more important than any potential cross traffic being
stopped for.

~~~
NhanH
I think he meant that instead of following deterministic rule (ie stop sign ==
stop), the car can take into account other factors, and make the actions with
the best probability to not cause a disaster.

And keep in mind that the world in which self-driving cars are dominant is
very and much different than the world we're living right now (as far as
transportation are concern). Stop signs are meant to be read for human, car
don't actually have to care about it. How about instead of stop sign at
crossroad, we have some devices that can monitor the incoming traffic, and
relay that information to the car? (I'd say that the car can even communicate
with each other by themselves - but that approach has a host of other problems
too).

Honestly, I'd say the main problem in a world of self-driving car are other
human-driven cars: the self-driving car has no idea what the human would do,
and the human has no idea what the automated car would do.

