Comments on: Cars That Drive Themselves Today, and Automated Highways of the Future http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html Chronicling and Commenting on Human Progress Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:17:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Anthony Kendall http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-152 Anthony Kendall Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:20:00 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-152 Alan, Thanks, I hadn't read that article yet. Your description on the function of the the automated highway is right along the lines of what I've envisioned as well. It's also interesting that you don't think that liability will be a major threat to the system as does Tom (and the article in Wired, see below). I'm definitely not the first to write on this subject. I just finished my Wired magazine from January and read an article about "Stanley", the Volkswagen Toureg that won the DARPA Grand Challenge. That article talks about many of the same smart car technologies that I've mentioned, but it didn't go into depth on the automated highways concept. Alan,
Thanks, I hadn’t read that article yet. Your description on the function of the the automated highway is right along the lines of what I’ve envisioned as well. It’s also interesting that you don’t think that liability will be a major threat to the system as does Tom (and the article in Wired, see below).

I’m definitely not the first to write on this subject. I just finished my Wired magazine from January and read an article about “Stanley”, the Volkswagen Toureg that won the DARPA Grand Challenge. That article talks about many of the same smart car technologies that I’ve mentioned, but it didn’t go into depth on the automated highways concept.

]]> By: Alan Bellows http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-151 Alan Bellows Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:13:00 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-151 Hey Anthony... One of our first articles at DamnInteresting was on this very topic: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=23 Self-driving cars, if reliable, would make the world a lot safer and less polluted... a pity the main point of resistance is the same people who would benefit the most. Alan Hey Anthony… One of our first articles at DamnInteresting was on this very topic:

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=23

Self-driving cars, if reliable, would make the world a lot safer and less polluted… a pity the main point of resistance is the same people who would benefit the most.

Alan

]]> By: Tom http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-150 Tom Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:58:00 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-150 That's a good point. Yeah. Do that. Put the punitive damages where health care will benefit, not trial lawers. Or, we can just keep taking from the tobbaco companies. :) That’s a good point. Yeah. Do that. Put the punitive damages where health care will benefit, not trial lawers. Or, we can just keep taking from the tobbaco companies. :)

]]> By: Anthony Kendall http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-149 Anthony Kendall Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:59:00 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-149 Tom, Have you come across an analysis of health care costs? I am very curious to know the breakdown, because it's quite the political issue these days. I'm not sure that the whole medical malpractice limitations is a conservative/liberal issue, but it certainly is a republican/democrat one. I tend to fall on your side of the issue on this. In a bit of a side-note, I also think that punitive damages on lawsuits should not be awarded to individuals or law firms. Actual, compensatory damages should, but punitive damages should go towards other purposes like funding programs to help people. Right now, punitive damages go to law firms, make lawyers rich along with a few individuals, and then drive prices up for the rest of us. But, I definitely think punitive damages are necessary, otherwise corporate abuses can get out of control. Tom,
Have you come across an analysis of health care costs? I am very curious to know the breakdown, because it’s quite the political issue these days. I’m not sure that the whole medical malpractice limitations is a conservative/liberal issue, but it certainly is a republican/democrat one.

I tend to fall on your side of the issue on this. In a bit of a side-note, I also think that punitive damages on lawsuits should not be awarded to individuals or law firms. Actual, compensatory damages should, but punitive damages should go towards other purposes like funding programs to help people. Right now, punitive damages go to law firms, make lawyers rich along with a few individuals, and then drive prices up for the rest of us. But, I definitely think punitive damages are necessary, otherwise corporate abuses can get out of control.

]]> By: Tom http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-148 Tom Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:54:00 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-148 Well, if you vote for me for president, I would try to put a similar cap on malpractice lawsuits which is the main driver of our massivly increasing health care costs. Putting such a cap could help make health care universally affordable again. The same thing should work with cars. Well, if you vote for me for president, I would try to put a similar cap on malpractice lawsuits which is the main driver of our massivly increasing health care costs. Putting such a cap could help make health care universally affordable again. The same thing should work with cars.

]]> By: Anthony Kendall http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-147 Anthony Kendall Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:02:00 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-147 Tom, The legal issues are an excellent point, and you're right that in our country, the risk of litigation would be massive. I've not really thought this through too much, but it seems that some sort of standard compensation limit could be derived that would still greatly decrease economic losses due to crashes. For instance, if you limited all fatal crashes to no more than $5 million dollars (scaled to inflation), then the total economic losses are on the order of $200 billion. But, if the number of fatal accidents was decreased say to a factor of 1/4, then the economic losses are far lower. Indeed, the losses may be on the order of $50 billion, which works out to about a little over $300 per year per driver. That's cheaper than our current insurance costs by a wide margin. The question of course is could we realistically limit the damages awarded in accident cases? I'm not sure. That's probably a political question that is not easily "reasoned through" as is the aim of my writings here. Tom,
The legal issues are an excellent point, and you’re right that in our country, the risk of litigation would be massive.

I’ve not really thought this through too much, but it seems that some sort of standard compensation limit could be derived that would still greatly decrease economic losses due to crashes. For instance, if you limited all fatal crashes to no more than $5 million dollars (scaled to inflation), then the total economic losses are on the order of $200 billion. But, if the number of fatal accidents was decreased say to a factor of 1/4, then the economic losses are far lower. Indeed, the losses may be on the order of $50 billion, which works out to about a little over $300 per year per driver. That’s cheaper than our current insurance costs by a wide margin.

The question of course is could we realistically limit the damages awarded in accident cases? I’m not sure. That’s probably a political question that is not easily “reasoned through” as is the aim of my writings here.

]]> By: Tom http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-146 Tom Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:51:00 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/cars-that-drive-themselves-today-and.html#comment-146 In one of my Computer Science classes in college, we studied a system currently in development that changed cruise control settings according to the traffic around you. So, when setting your cruise control to 70mph, it would only go 70 if the car in front of you (within a certain range) was going 70 or more. Otherwise, it would automatically slow down the car and match speeds at a safe distance. The system would speed back up if you changed lanes, etc. Also, if cars ahead were to brake suddenly the system would slow down the car and even brake as needed to get your own car to stop when human interaction wouldn't be fast enough. A system like this, if all cars had it, would be great. However, in our class we talked about how the two main issues prevening this technology from actually being used were 1) people's unwillingness to trust the computer with their lives, even if it wasn't really a risk, and 2) legal issues. #2 was a huge problem. For example, if the car infront of you slams on the brakes to avoid hitting a deer, this system would slam on the brakes in your car. If you hit the car in front of you because you didn't stop in time, they could potentially be sued, even if the brake time was so short that human interaction wouldn't have saved it either. So their solution was to actually turn the control system off one second before impact would occurr so that they would not be a part of the accident. This is only one case, but the legal issues of automated highways are overwhelming. In the current system, the fault is with humans and only humans in most cases. With the automated system, the human is always a victim. In our lawsuit nation, that will be one of the biggest problems to over come. In one of my Computer Science classes in college, we studied a system currently in development that changed cruise control settings according to the traffic around you. So, when setting your cruise control to 70mph, it would only go 70 if the car in front of you (within a certain range) was going 70 or more. Otherwise, it would automatically slow down the car and match speeds at a safe distance. The system would speed back up if you changed lanes, etc. Also, if cars ahead were to brake suddenly the system would slow down the car and even brake as needed to get your own car to stop when human interaction wouldn’t be fast enough.

A system like this, if all cars had it, would be great. However, in our class we talked about how the two main issues prevening this technology from actually being used were 1) people’s unwillingness to trust the computer with their lives, even if it wasn’t really a risk, and 2) legal issues.

#2 was a huge problem. For example, if the car infront of you slams on the brakes to avoid hitting a deer, this system would slam on the brakes in your car. If you hit the car in front of you because you didn’t stop in time, they could potentially be sued, even if the brake time was so short that human interaction wouldn’t have saved it either. So their solution was to actually turn the control system off one second before impact would occurr so that they would not be a part of the accident.

This is only one case, but the legal issues of automated highways are overwhelming. In the current system, the fault is with humans and only humans in most cases. With the automated system, the human is always a victim. In our lawsuit nation, that will be one of the biggest problems to over come.

]]>