24 thoughts on “Self-Driving Cars”

  1. Awesome. It’s great for Google to have more competition in this area, and for people (especially public policy makers) to start getting used to the idea of self-driving cars.

    1. People fall asleep on long haul drives today; it looks like Hyundai’s system would at least keep you in your lane, and keep you from slamming into the car in front of you.

      Any human-assist system like this is going to have some rebound effect, where drivers compensate for the safety improvement by behaving more recklessly. There are studies that suggest that adoption of seat belts and air bags have worsened pedestrian safety, because drivers think they can get away with riskier driving. Which is one reason to prefer Google’s plan, which is to jump straight to 100% automated vehicles. They wouldn’t be able to go everywhere, at least not to start, but they don’t depend on a semi-engaged human driver being ready to take control at any moment.

  3. I wonder when the first car maker will bite the bullet and move from Wheel and pedals to
    Joystick steering. It’s trivial to do the controls for that and it would be a big cost savings feature.
    the dashboards would be cheaper, the airbags would be cheaper and the footwells cheaper.
    It would also be much safer, you could have more room for collision absorption and
    be able to sell cars in the UK and Japan easier.

    2. I wouldn’t expect a statist to actually understand Human Factors. If they did, they probably wouldn’t be statist as well.

      1. One shouldn’t expect a conservative to be comfortable with change and new technology.
        If they were, they probably wouldn’t be a conservative.

      2. Actually, it’s the state that is holding back the bulk of innovation in human factors development in the car cabin. That big screen in the Model-S, Tesla had to fight tooth and nail for it.

  4. I, for one, do not welcome our self driving masters. Once they become popular and affordable, they will become mandatory, due to the increased safety factor. Then a human freedom I particularly enjoy – driving my own car where I want and how I want, will be gone. There is no second amendment for automobiles.

    2. That human freedom is expensive, both in dollars and lives. I expect it will disappear eventually, but maybe not until all of us who grew up driving have gotten too old to drive anyway.

    3. Amen, Fenster. If I just wanted to ride from place to place in a controlled vehicle, I’d ride the bus. Will exploring the back roads and byways even be possible with these things, or will we be trapped on the programmed routes?

    4. And let’s not forget that the government will be tracking your every move, and if they decide they want you all they will need to do is lock you in the car and send it to the nearest police station to be opened at their leisure. Its something Robert Heinlein warned against in some of his novels where his characters had to spoof the system to escape from it.

      Really if the Tea Party is so into freedom you would think they would pass laws, perhaps even a Constitution Amendment that would prohibit this.

      Detroit also should think of the consequences, because when cars drive themselves why will you need to own one? Just call one when you need it and pay by the mile, just like a taxi but without the driver or risks associated with it. In fact that is a logical step in the process, the government outlawing private vehicles and giving local franchises to firms like any other utility since if you don’t own a vehicle the government won’t have to worry about your messing with the controls and being a menace to society. And once you have such cars on demand you may forget the need to make different models. 3-4 uniform sizes will work for all.

      Really I see nothing good about automated cars when it comes to personal freedom and individual rights. Best to ban and kill this technology now before it becomes a threat to freedom.

      1. Ahh, Tom throws in the obligatory Tea Party insult, then essentially suggests in his final paragraph that we do the very thing he used to insult them.

        1. Because for a group that claims to stand for freedom they really don’t seem to do much to protect it when they are elected.

          1. Are you really so stupid as to think that the Tea Party is even aware of self-driving cars, given the much-more immediate threats to liberty?

          3. Rand,

            Thanks for supporting my view that the Tea Party are a bunch of Luddites living in the past 🙂

            Also the Supreme Court just proved that individual is not at much as risk as you seem to feel. The Constitution’s set of check and balances does work.

          5. Really, Rand study your history. Laws protecting individual freedoms always start at the state level.

            The first laws against slavery, on civil rights, religious freedom, were all state laws, then the national laws followed. So where are those state laws protecting freedom of movement in private vehicles? Especially in states like Wisconsin and Michigan that are controlled by the Tea Party Republicans? Where are the laws being passed to ban them as a threat to individual freedom? Laws protecting freedom of movement in private vehicles?

            Instead Michigan, one of those “Tea Party” states, just passed a law last year allowing them on their roads, just the opposite.

            Remember, the first laws against slavery, on civil rights, religious freedom, were all state laws, the national laws followed. So were are those state laws protecting freedom of movement in private vehicles?

          6. Perhaps when it becomes an actual threat, someone will do something about it. It would be stupid to expend political capital on it right now at the expense of more urgent issues.

          7. Now is exactly the time to do it, before it becomes “urgent” and when it doesn’t take much political capital. Most of the “urgent” issues you are focused on wouldn’t be urgent now if they were dealt with years ago.

Comments are closed.