Concern Mounts Over Self-Driving Cars Taking Away Freedom

[DamianTV]

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/08/22/2020207/concern-mounts-over-self-driving-cars-taking-away-freedom


"Opinions in the blogosphere are building and run the gamut on self-driving automobile technology, but a survey supports the trend that most don't want their driving independence usurped by cameras, sensors and an onboard computer. The survey of British drivers last year commissioned by Bosch, a Germany-based supplier of automotive components, found that most would not buy a self-driving car. Only 29% of respondents said thay would consider buying a driverless car and only 21% said they would feel safe as a passenger in a self-driving car. David Alexander, an analyst at Navigant Research, pointed out that while driving yourself is often preferable, there's a lot of "grunt" driving that would be better handled by a computer. Navigant recently released a report stating that by 2035, 95 million autonomous cars will be sold every year."


Embedded links not copied in text of article.

[Anti Federalist]

Of course they will take away freedom.

And people will fall all over themselves to do so.

For convenience and safety.

[DamianTV]

Of course they will take away freedom.

And people will fall all over themselves to do so.

For convenience and safety.

For too many, the comforts of convenience are more important than the happiness of freedom. Welcome to Complacency.

[Neil Desmond]

If the concern is the use of cameras, sensors, and computers doing the driving, then I wonder: do they have objections over calculators doing number crunching rather than doing it manually with paper & pencil? How often does a person doing a paper/pencil get the wrong answer, compared to a calculator? Same with computers & the internet; these devices also do so many things automatically, and many people probably aren't even aware of what those actions entail or how many are occurring.

Even with an elevator, people aren't directly controlling it, either. Have you ever seen one with an accelerator installed in it? Does anyone want an elevator where you have to manually open and close the doors? Would anyone want an accelerator installed in an elevator? Not only is an elevator's acceleration system designed for optimal efficiency, it's also designed so people don't go from free fall speed to instantly coming to a stop (FYI, doing that would basically kill the people in the elevator). Based on their logic, that's basically what they want.

If they were even aware of how dominant computers are in many aspects of our life, they'd probably realize that their concerns are rather unfounded. I myself do have my own concerns or issues with self-driving vehicles. One thing would be choice. I would want to be able to switch between self driving mode and being able to manually drive it. I would also want to be able to choose between an optimal route or to take a scenic route. I might not want it to drive in the right lane, so I want to be able to tell it to drive in the middle lane. It might be that I still need to be able to control it manually, because I need to drive through an unpaved area or the self-driving car's map/location database is outdated.

Safety would also be something I would want to know I have. They do have all kinds of safety features for all kinds of circumstances, but can they handle all possible circumstances on roads that were designed and optimized for the way people have been driving for many decades? I think there's always going to be unforeseeable situations, or sometimes we might notice that we have to take unusual action in unique circumstances to avoid a collision or disaster, when we're driving. Will self-driving cars know how to make the best judgement call for any situation?

What do these self driving cars do when they detect a problem? Do they always slow down or come to a stop? Are they designed from a liability perspective, and what is that perspective? What if a bolt of lightning strikes a tree and causes it to come down, or a boulder is rolling down the side of a mountain; will the car's sensors not only pick up on those things, but will it take the right action? It might be to quickly come to a stop, or it might involve not coming to a stop & maybe even accelerating to avoid being struck. The algorithm might detect a boulder or tree, and make the decision to slow down or stop, but that might put the vehicle right in the boulder's or tree's path, whereas a person might know to keep moving, or veer, their vehicle to put some distance between the car and tree or boulder instead.

[Anti Federalist]

If the concern is the use of cameras, sensors, and computers doing the driving, then I wonder: do they have objections over calculators doing number crunching rather than doing it manually with paper & pencil? How often does a person doing a paper/pencil get the wrong answer, compared to a calculator? Same with computers & the internet; these devices also do so many things automatically, and many people probably aren't even aware of what those actions entail or how many are occurring.

Which is why fast food cash registers now have to have pictures on them.


If they were even aware of how dominant computers are in many aspects of our life, they'd probably realize that their concerns are rather unfounded. I myself do have my own concerns or issues with self-driving vehicles. One thing would be choice. I would want to be able to switch between self driving mode and being able to manually drive it. I would also want to be able to choose between an optimal route or to take a scenic route. I might not want it to drive in the right lane, so I want to be able to tell it to drive in the middle lane. It might be that I still need to be able to control it manually, because I need to drive through an unpaved area or the self-driving car's map/location database is outdated.

I am well aware of how ubiquitous Big Brother and the computer surveillance net is.

Which is why I am so opposed to it, convenience be damned.

Oh, all the things you mentioned?

Prohibited.

That is why I am a proud technophobe and Luddite to boot.

In spite of all the claims, it's not helping, people are both progressively getting more stupid and more stratified.

We are creating a world that will not need us, auto-genocide on a planetary level.

(And yes, I am well aware of the irony of using technology in order to decry it, so don't bother to point that out.)

[DamianTV]

If the concern is the use of cameras, sensors, and computers doing the driving, then I wonder: do they have objections over calculators doing number crunching rather than doing it manually with paper & pencil? How often does a person doing a paper/pencil get the wrong answer, compared to a calculator? Same with computers & the internet; these devices also do so many things automatically, and many people probably aren't even aware of what those actions entail or how many are occurring.

Even with an elevator, people aren't directly controlling it, either. Have you ever seen one with an accelerator installed in it? Does anyone want an elevator where you have to manually open and close the doors? Would anyone want an accelerator installed in an elevator? Not only is an elevator's acceleration system designed for optimal efficiency, it's also designed so people don't go from free fall speed to instantly coming to a stop (FYI, doing that would basically kill the people in the elevator). Based on their logic, that's basically what they want.

If they were even aware of how dominant computers are in many aspects of our life, they'd probably realize that their concerns are rather unfounded. I myself do have my own concerns or issues with self-driving vehicles. One thing would be choice. I would want to be able to switch between self driving mode and being able to manually drive it. I would also want to be able to choose between an optimal route or to take a scenic route. I might not want it to drive in the right lane, so I want to be able to tell it to drive in the middle lane. It might be that I still need to be able to control it manually, because I need to drive through an unpaved area or the self-driving car's map/location database is outdated.

Safety would also be something I would want to know I have. They do have all kinds of safety features for all kinds of circumstances, but can they handle all possible circumstances on roads that were designed and optimized for the way people have been driving for many decades? I think there's always going to be unforeseeable situations, or sometimes we might notice that we have to take unusual action in unique circumstances to avoid a collision or disaster, when we're driving. Will self-driving cars know how to make the best judgement call for any situation?

What do these self driving cars do when they detect a problem? Do they always slow down or come to a stop? Are they designed from a liability perspective, and what is that perspective? What if a bolt of lightning strikes a tree and causes it to come down, or a boulder is rolling down the side of a mountain; will the car's sensors not only pick up on those things, but will it take the right action? It might be to quickly come to a stop, or it might involve not coming to a stop & maybe even accelerating to avoid being struck. The algorithm might detect a boulder or tree, and make the decision to slow down or stop, but that might put the vehicle right in the boulder's or tree's path, whereas a person might know to keep moving, or veer, their vehicle to put some distance between the car and tree or boulder instead.



How many people use calculators because they simply dont know how to do the math in the first place? How many people out there do not know how to multiply? Long division? The answer might suprise you. Problem is not that people understand how, it is that they dont even bother to try to understand.

I understand your point of view on wanting to be safe, but at what cost? And who gets to decide what is safe or not? If it were up to the politicians, they'd outlaw everything with ANY risk. They'd outlaw a person being in control of a computer car. They'll also outlaw swimming pools, bathtubs, and knives with pointy tips. Guess what, the knives thing is already happening in the UK. Knives there are now required to have rounded tips, but are still allowed for sharp edges because they fear stabbings with kitchen utensils. Or look at us with the Plastic Sporks we have in schools that have replaced real silverware with "dangerous pointy tips". Everything our govt has done has been in the name of your safety, and you are left with NO FREEDOM to go skydiving, rock climing, or even COOK without Govt intervention.

One things for sure, when the Govt wants to come after you, they know exactly where you are and where you plan on going.

[Neil Desmond]

Which is why fast food cash registers now have to have pictures on them.
Yeah, that's not good.

[PursuePeace]

Self-driving cars?
NO.

[DamianTV]

Throw it in the woods, as AF usually says.

[Neil Desmond]

Self-driving cars?
NO.
You're not saying that you want the government to ban them, do you? ;)

[tod evans]

Everything government gets involved in they fuck up, everything!

Why in the world would anyone advocate delegating control of travel to the government?

Just look whats going on with the TSA for Petes sake.

[Neil Desmond]

Everything government gets involved in they fuck up, everything!

Why in the world would anyone advocate delegating control of travel to the government?

Just look whats going on with the TSA for Petes sake.
It's actually delegating control of a vehicle to automation. The government already controls travel with things like traffic enforcement; from what I understand, the automobile industry may have played a significant role or was responsible for coming up with that concept - posting speed limit signs, having law enforcement do traffic enforcement and issue tickets, which is a political rather than technical solution. With self driving cars, when it comes to government involvement, it seems there would be less of it.

Regarding TSA, if you're referring to what they're doing to screen passengers at airports - yeah, that ought to the airlines handling that privately, not the government. I don't understand why they exist at all. They ought to be right there near the top of the list of federal agencies or entities to simply get rid of.

[tod evans]

It's actually delegating control of a vehicle to automation. The government already controls travel with things like traffic enforcement; from what I understand, the automobile industry may have played a significant role or was responsible for coming up with that concept - posting speed limit signs, having law enforcement do traffic enforcement and issue tickets, which is a political rather than technical solution. With self driving cars, when it comes to government involvement, it seems there would be less of it.

Regarding TSA, if you're referring to what they're doing to screen passengers at airports - yeah, that ought to the airlines handling that privately, not the government. I don't understand why they exist at all. They ought to be right there near the top of the list of federal agencies or entities to simply get rid of.

Government never shrinks, give it authority over anything and in the end the tax-payer suffers.

History is quite clear on this.

[DamianTV]

The tax-payers will also be required to pay for all this new technology as well. If / when Govt decides you need a Camera in your bathroom so they can watch you shower, you'll be the one to pay for it. Capitalism my ass.

[silverhandorder]

Can't wait to be able to read or browse during my commute. Self driving cars would be an enormous boost of productivity.

[DamianTV]

Can't wait to be able to read or browse during my commute. Self driving cars would be an enormous boost of productivity.

Then take a BUS.

[Christian Liberty]

Considering my awful coordination skills, if these worked well, I honestly might want one.

That said, its likely that they'd make them mandatory, and I'm completely against that.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Technology is inherently morality free. I just don't want be in a position where the Government or some Company, can lock me from the use of my own vehicle, and you bet when this starts to become ubiquitous that on a mere police accusation, whatever company / device will be used to prevent your vehicle from starting, or worse yet, will drive you right to the 'authorities'. I'll pass on this.

[donnay]

One of the main reasons I don't like airplanes, buses, cabs and trains--I LOVE TO DRIVE!!! I do not like other people driving (except my husband--he is a good driver). <--Best Rainman impression. :D

[Anti Federalist]

Can't wait to be able to read or browse during my commute. Self driving cars would be an enormous boost of productivity.

That will not be permitted.

While in autodrive mode, you will be required to maintain a "sterile cockpit" just like pilots have to do.

You will do nothing but closely monitor the systems for any deviations.

No eating, no drinking, no fellatio, no drunken night out, no snoozing, no reading, no nothing.

In car, "real time" surveillance will monitor you for compliance.

I know what you're wishing for.

You need to realize it.

[DamianTV]

Considering my awful coordination skills, if these worked well, I honestly might want one.

That said, its likely that they'd make them mandatory, and I'm completely against that.

Agree

There are valid uses for it. But making them mandatory is something we all need to be against. Like the pharmacutical companies that want to put Statins in the water just to jack up their profits.

[Anti Federalist]

Technology is inherently morality free. I just don't want be in a position where the Government or some Company, can lock me from the use of my own vehicle, and you bet when this starts to become ubiquitous that on a mere police accusation, whatever company / device will be used to prevent your vehicle from starting, or worse yet, will drive you right to the 'authorities'. I'll pass on this.

I disagree with the "technology is neutral" position.

But you nailed the rest.

[silverhandorder]

We will see what happens. I am more optimistic about it.

[liberty2897]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9Q05UyIOX4



My uncle has a country place
That no one knows about.
He says it used to be a farm,
Before the Motor Law.
And on Sundays I elude the Eyes,
And hop the Turbine Freight
To far outside the Wire,
Where my white-haired uncle waits.

Jump to the ground
As the Turbo slows to cross the Borderline.
Run like the wind,
As excitement shivers up and down my spine.
Down in his barn,
My uncle preserved for me an old machine,
For fifty-odd years.
To keep it as new has been his dearest dream.

I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car.
A brilliant red Barchetta
From a better, vanished time.
I fire up the willing engine,
Responding with a roar.
Tires spitting gravel,
I commit my weekly crime...

Wind-
In my hair-
Shifting and drifting-
Mechanical music-
Adrenalin surge...

Well-weathered leather,
Hot metal and oil,
The scented country air.
Sunlight on chrome,
The blur of the landscape,
Every nerve aware.

Suddenly ahead of me,
Across the mountainside,
A gleaming alloy air-car
Shoots towards me, two lanes wide.
I spin around with shrieking tires,
To run the deadly race,
Go screaming through the valley
As another joins the chase.

Drive like the wind,
Straining the limits of machine and man.
Laughing out loud
With fear and hope, I've got a desperate plan.
At the one-lane bridge
I leave the giants stranded at the riverside.
Race back to the farm, to dream with my uncle at the fireside

[Christian Liberty]

I disagree with the "technology is neutral" position.

But you nailed the rest.

I think its technically true in most cases, but there are cases where I'd say it isn't true, and cases where I'd say even if it is technically true, in reality we should throw them all in the woods anyway.

Drones or Google Glass could have legitimate uses, but since the reality is they are going to be used to expand on statism, I support throwing them in the woods.

ICBMs have no legitimate use other than to commit mass murder, it would be better if they had never been invented.

[Danke]

NASCAR is gonna get kinda boring.

So I'm against it.

And when my home computer freezes/crashes, I go get another cup of coffee...

[VoluntaryAmerican]

On the bright side there would be no need for traffic cops.

[kcchiefs6465]

On the bright side there would be no need for traffic cops.
You're dreaming.

[enhanced_deficit]

On related note, there is no confirmation from MSM that journalist Hastings was in a self-driving car.

[jclay2]

That will not be permitted.

While in autodrive mode, you will be required to maintain a "sterile cockpit" just like pilots have to do.

You will do nothing but closely monitor the systems for any deviations.

No eating, no drinking, no fellatio

lol + rep