
The Mercedes Robo-Car That Made Me Want to Stop Driving - carlchenet
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/mercedes-benz-f-015-autonomous-car/
======
tajen
Funny how those kinds of previews of the future always include luxury perks
(in the present case they highlight the 4K display; for flights in the 60 they
highlighted luxury meals) when the reality is obviously pragmatic.

More seriously, I wonder how automated cars deals with our road traditions. In
France, if you leave the officially required distance with the front car on
the highway, another car will insert in between. Then you'll have to slow
down, and another car will insert, and so on. Cars can't be programmed to
perform something illegal, so I guess they don't deal with "competitive
situations" efficiently.

~~~
leohutson
Tailgating isn't just illegal, it's also extremely dangerous. I think the in
best case, a self-driving car would record the number plate of the car that
cut you off, and you could then pass that information on to the police.

edit: I didn't want this to come across as an attack, I'm not a perfect driver
myself, in fact I'm still on my learner licence :) . I feel the fact you have
to constantly break the law because other drivers are also breaking the law to
be a problem in itself, without even bringing the autonomous car into the
equation.

~~~
m_mueller
There's a difference between tailgating and using one's space though. I'm a
Swiss who's driven in France (countryside) and I've always found French
driving style quite pleasant. Quick on the outer lane, giving you space on the
inner/middle lane. What I mean is: Legal limits usually don't really reflect
what's safe with today's cars, so using the space a bit better shouldn't be a
problem as long as you're respectful and reasonable.

So yeah, parent raises interesting questions - since autonomous cars will
probably have to follow legal limits, what about driving culture? If it were
me I'd solve the issue by giving drivers a slider going from the most
aggressive yet still safe distance to the legal distance - with legal warnings
you have to tap through if you want to change the slider.

~~~
ghshephard
"Legal limits usually don't really reflect what's safe with today's cars,"

Correct - Legal Limits results in many deaths a year that would not occur if
the Limits were more strict. People who violate even those rather dangerous
limits, result in even more carnage.

I find it fascinating how overconfident people are when it comes to cars, and
just _feel_ that because they aren't getting into accidents, that cars are
safe.

There isn't a single country in the world that believes that human life is
worth more than the convenience of speeding around in cars.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero)
is a great concept, but until automation is fully extended, most of the
traffic laws, speeds, car spacing will continue to result in people dying in
numbers greater than if there were more strict regulations.

~~~
m_mueller
> Legal Limits results in many deaths a year that would not occur if the
> Limits were more strict.

Source on this please. Let's take speed limits as an example. Looking at [1],
the data for the US doesn't seem to be conclusive to me - some times speed
limit decreases didn't have a significant effect, sometimes increases lead to
more crashes, sometimes to _less_ crashes. So I don't know about you, but I
wouldn't use such a blanket statement. Also, Europe often has higher speed
limits, but significantly less fatalities than the US[2], both by miles driven
and by number of cars. That may or may not be causal, but the world is not as
simple as _it 's the law so it must be good_.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness)

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate)

Edit: I've been looking for regulations on following distance, but I can't
actually find any. There's lots of rules that are given to driving learners
but I can't find anything legally binding, whether for the US nor for European
country. Obviously keeping a safe distance is necessary for reducing
accidents, but lacking any data I can't really say what distance is safe. In
Switzerland we learn the 'two second rule', in the US it seems to be three
seconds - which seems excessively much to me - at that distance you'd have
driver after driver using the gap in front of you since half the distance
would seem close enough to the two-second-rule to them - thus creating way
more critical situations where you have to be careful.

~~~
jabakobob
"Doesn't seem conclusive"? I find it hard to believe you could read that table
you linked to and claim that speed limits are not effective. Most of the data
presented show double digit correlations between speed limit changes and
fatalities!

~~~
m_mueller
I'm quoting the data entries for the US that are either nation-wide or multi-
state:

 _decreases_

* US (22 states) (1992) 5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) decreases No significant changes

 _increases_

* US (1989) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Fatal crashes increased by 21%

* US (40 states) (1990) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Fatalities increased by 15% Decrease or no effect in 12 States

* US (40 states) (1994) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5% (Significant in 14 of 40 states)

* US (22 states) (1997) 5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) increase No significant changes

So no, I don't see the defining answer here. I'm not saying that the limits
should be raised across the board, I'm also not saying that decreases aren't
good - all I'm saying is that legal limits should be assessed from time to
time (which they are), because of changes in society, technology and new data.
Laws are not perfect.

------
pluma
> Instead of a homeless guy offering to squeegee your windshield, you’ll see
> crowds celebrating your passage. A Tuscan village will take the place of
> your crummy suburban cul de sac.

Does anybody else find this train of thought disturbing? That "if I can look
at screens instead of out the window I won't have to see the homeless" is one
of the first things to come to the author's mind speaks volumes.

------
onion2k
One of the things we can take from this article is that once autonomous cars
are ubiquitous, you won't be able to save time when you're running late by
driving dangerously. Better start learning some time management skills.

And, obviously, if you have good time management skills, you wouldn't need to
drive dangerously in the first place.

~~~
mwadams
Hopefully, a key benefit of autonomous cars is that they optimize speed to
minimize jams and improve overall traffic flow.

[https://keshavsaharia.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/traffic-
op...](https://keshavsaharia.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/traffic-optimization-
system.pdf)

Things like junctions/intersections would be much better managed (we might
even be able to make them free-flowing on roads where non-autonomous vehicles
were banned).

~~~
onion2k
Assume that you're travelling 100 miles. The first 4 miles are in town, with
lots of crossings, lights, etc. The middle 92 miles are on highways with a few
turn offs. The final 4 miles are back in town with lights and crossings again.
let's assume UK speed limits for everything (30mph in town, 70mph on
highways). We'll ignore acceleration.

In an autonomous car you can do the speed limit for the entire journey. That's
8 miles at 30mph and 92 miles at 70mph. The journey takes you 95 minutes.

In the human-driven car you're slowed to an average of 20mph in town, but on
the highway you travel at 85mph because that's what everyone else does. The
journey takes you 89 minutes.

Obviously the 95 minutes in the autonomous car can be a _productive_ 95
minutes whereas driving yourself you can't do much else for those 89 minutes,
which is a huge difference, but until _all the cars_ are autonomous (or there
are superfast autonomous lanes at least) then it's probably going to be
quicker to drive yourself because to a human a speed limit is a guideline
rather than a rule.

~~~
mwadams
Why would the speed limit on the highway be 70mph in a world of autonomous
vehicles? Research indicates that a raise in the limit to 80 or 85 mph would
be perfectly safe - the only reason for a 70 mph limit is to cope with heavy
traffic.

[http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/policy/our-
policies...](http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/policy/our-
policies/motorway-speed-limit)

------
Animats
OK, an oversized self-driving electric limo that seats 4. Why not?

It's amusing that Mercedes' concept of the future of automotive transportation
is total isolation from the external world. They didn't go all the way to
windowless, but it seems to have more display screen acreage than side
windows.

They seem to have borrowed the "street glow" concept from lowriders.[1] The
car has large areas of blue LEDs on the front and back faces. That's so LA.

The concept might work, once they get the bulk of the vehicle down and lose
the tacky bling.

[1]
[http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff272/tilley858/RX-7-Stre...](http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff272/tilley858/RX-7-StreetGlow.jpg)

~~~
jckt
I think a lot of that is just to advertise the car ("this the future,
people!!"). For example, the article notes how large parts of the F 015 is
made of "plastic that changes shape in hot weather", which Mercedes (or any
other self-respecting auto brand, for that matter) is never going to put in
their actual cars that they sell.

So I don't think we can take the cosmetic aspects too literally as to what
Mercedes' design team will actually go for with the final product.

------
6d0debc071
If this car insists that pedestrians go first, to the extent of stopping and
projecting a sidewalk in front of them, it'll never go anywhere very fast.
People will just step out into traffic trusting that the car will stop for
them - and in areas of any significant pedestrian density that'll mean that
you're constantly stopped or going at a couple of miles an hour.

Without the prospect of getting run down and squished if you behave like a
total moron, that's what people will do.

------
Toast_
Whenever I read an article like this—in advocacy of AI controlled objects, I
always wonder: who would be to blame if an unfortunate circumstance would
arrive? As in, say there was an accident, how could 'faulty software' be
blamed, or better put, how would it stand trial? Perhaps it could go through
another update (think ios 8). Problem solved?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Let the insurance companies figure out who to blame in each particular case;
that's what they're for.

~~~
Toast_
Right, and when they represent giant corporations, us common-folk won't have
anything to fear; "It wasn't faulty software,but a dysfunctional update"—sort
of thing. (my issue is that you won't be able to point a finger at anyone.)

~~~
TeMPOraL
In a system as complex, where you have millions of lines of code written by
hundreds of programmers run on hundreds of chips designed by thousands of
people, it doesn't really make sense to "point a finger at someone". The
smallest responsible unit will most likely be the company that created the
car.

~~~
Toast_
Which is exactly the point I'm pushing: Who will pay for other's incompetence
(or for lack of a better word failure)? Will we simply sweep someone's life
under the rug? With regards to the idea that a company will be 'responsible,'
just think of Shell and the oil in the gulf. I only want to be held
accountable for my own actions, and not be a statistic a corporation sweeps
under the rug. The issue is the accountability, and its ability to be
exploited, not the actual legal value.

~~~
adyus
Well in this situation, the hypothetical "you" are held accountable for your
choice of automated car. Evaluating which programming group to trust seems
like plenty of responsibility to me.

Just like every investor is fully aware of all variables when picking a stock,
thus fully accountable in case of said stock's crash, correct?

I'd agree with the parent commenter: the car company would be responsible,
financially. Legally, they would have to recall or disable all instances until
a fix is pushed.

Human life, in this case, will get a price tag, instead of a (jail) time
value, as is mostly the case today.

------
lqdc13
"After all, you don’t leave first class to sit in the cockpit."

Many people do or wish they could.

Also why people drive stick shift on purpose.

------
usaphp
Like a famous vice Top Gear presenter once said "We have a self driving car
already, it's called a BUS".

In the article they say "There will come a time, within a few decades, when
people simply will not drive anymore". I completely disagree with that
opinion. For me and for most of my friends driving is a joy, its not just
going from point A to point B. I don't think we will ever stop driving
altogether.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Like a famous vice Top Gear presenter once said "We have a self driving car
> already, it's called a BUS"._

True.

> _For me and for most of my friends driving is a joy, its not just going from
> point A to point B. I don 't think we will ever stop driving altogether._

We don't have to stop driving altogether, we only need to eliminate 90% of the
driving - the part that is boring and joyless, i.e. commute. Also, driving on
_public_ roads should be _safe_ , not fun.

------
martindale
If I ever make a billion dollars, some portion of it will be spent to make
sure a production run of cars like this are made under the GPL license such
that we hackers can make and improve upon the interfaces described.

~~~
roel_v
As long as nobody is legally allowed to enter a road with such modifications,
I'm all for it - but I surely hope there will be strict enforcement against
'speed hacks', which user-modifiability will surely turn in to.

------
b4x
WTF!

