How do you feel about them? According to[this article](http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/30/96400...rash-study) they simultaneously get into more accidents and account for fewer fatalities than manually driven cars.

Regardless of statistics, these things are going to be controversial the second someone dies in one.

Some more interesting info:

Quote:Still, even taking all of these factors into account, it's still surprising that self-driving cars were involved in more accidents despite not causing any. So what's going on?

In a phone interview, lead author Brandon Schoettle stressed that there isn't enough data to draw any firm conclusions. But he suggested one possibility: that while self-driving cars aren't legally at fault, they may be behaving in ways that surprise human drivers who are used to interacting with other human beings.

For example, it's possible that self-driving cars stop more quickly than human drivers in some situations, making it more likely that they'll be rear-ended.

If that hypothesis is confirmed by future data, it could mean there will be a messy transition period, as a mix of human and automated vehicles lead to extra confusion on the road. On the other hand, the problem might be easy to solve if programmers can figure out how to make computers drive a bit more like human beings.

http://www.vox.com/technology/2015/10/30...ar-crashes

(10-30-2015 11:40 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  How do you feel about them? According to[this article](http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/30/96400...rash-study) they simultaneously get into more accidents and account for fewer fatalities than manually driven cars.

Regardless of statistics, these things are going to be controversial the second someone dies in one.

Some more interesting info:

Quote:Still, even taking all of these factors into account, it's still surprising that self-driving cars were involved in more accidents despite not causing any. So what's going on?

In a phone interview, lead author Brandon Schoettle stressed that there isn't enough data to draw any firm conclusions. But he suggested one possibility: that while self-driving cars aren't legally at fault, they may be behaving in ways that surprise human drivers who are used to interacting with other human beings.

For example, it's possible that self-driving cars stop more quickly than human drivers in some situations, making it more likely that they'll be rear-ended.

If that hypothesis is confirmed by future data, it could mean there will be a messy transition period, as a mix of human and automated vehicles lead to extra confusion on the road. On the other hand, the problem might be easy to solve if programmers can figure out how to make computers drive a bit more like human beings.

http://www.vox.com/technology/2015/10/30...ar-crashes

I'm perfectly fine with them. I'd feel much safer in a car driven automatically than by someone manually driving them.

Totally my personal outlook, but I don't like it for the same reason I don't like flying: someone else whom I do not know is in control of my life.

Whether that be a drunk pilot or automated intelligence......there's trust issues.

(10-30-2015 11:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Totally my personal outlook, but I don't like it for the same reason I don't like flying: someone else whom I do not know is in control of my life.

Whether that be a drunk pilot or automated intelligence......there's trust issues.

And I'm sure trust is going to be one of the biggest barriers.

If my computer can't run a week without crashing, what will my computer controlled car do? Obviously the two aren't equivalent, but most people won't see it that way.

Do you guys think this'll become a partisan issue?

(10-30-2015 11:40 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  How do you feel about them? According to[this article](http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/30/96400...rash-study) they simultaneously get into more accidents and account for fewer fatalities than manually driven cars.

Regardless of statistics, these things are going to be controversial the second someone dies in one.

Some more interesting info:

Quote:Still, even taking all of these factors into account, it's still surprising that self-driving cars were involved in more accidents despite not causing any. So what's going on?

In a phone interview, lead author Brandon Schoettle stressed that there isn't enough data to draw any firm conclusions. But he suggested one possibility: that while self-driving cars aren't legally at fault, they may be behaving in ways that surprise human drivers who are used to interacting with other human beings.

For example, it's possible that self-driving cars stop more quickly than human drivers in some situations, making it more likely that they'll be rear-ended.

If that hypothesis is confirmed by future data, it could mean there will be a messy transition period, as a mix of human and automated vehicles lead to extra confusion on the road. On the other hand, the problem might be easy to solve if programmers can figure out how to make computers drive a bit more like human beings.

http://www.vox.com/technology/2015/10/30...ar-crashes

Without reading the rest of this, I wonder if part of it could be evasive actions that human drivers, should anyway, always have a "plan B".

Especially true of anyone who has ever ridden a motorcycle, you have to constantly be aware of your surroundings and where am I gonna head if that car suddenly comes over into my lane or pulls out in front of me?

Don't know if self driving cars have that capability. If not, they may not cause the accidents, but they aren't gonna run off the road to avoid one either.

(10-30-2015 11:47 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 11:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Totally my personal outlook, but I don't like it for the same reason I don't like flying: someone else whom I do not know is in control of my life.

Whether that be a drunk pilot or automated intelligence......there's trust issues.

And I'm sure trust is going to be one of the biggest barriers.

If my computer can't run a week without crashing, what will my computer controlled car do? Obviously the two aren't equivalent, but most people won't see it that way.

Do you guys think this'll become a partisan issue?

No doubt.

And no doubt as well to the question. Somehow, someway it will be partisan.

The human element isn't always a bad thing. We make mistakes as people, but we often underplay how many things we really do get right.

I favor actually driving the car rather than any "self driving" car for the primary reason that I want to be the one in control, not the car.

(10-30-2015 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I favor actually driving the car rather than any "self driving" car for the primary reason that I want to be the one in control, not the car.

Well, and of course it wouldn't be the car in control anyway. It would be another colossal bureaucracy of faceless, nameless, unaccountable know-it-all Nanny-Staters that would know "what's best for us".

Governors on cars, no doubt, restrictions on where and when you could go certain places, at what speeds, what times and a thousand other decisions we make on the road each day.

No thanks.

I liked some actress' response on them the other night - I think they're a good possibility down the road for handicapped individuals. But I worry about the message we're sending out to drivers in the future. It's almost like these things are being built so we can text and drive in the future, or nap and drive, or do anything but actually drive while driving. I don't like the message we're sending younger drivers with this technology. I'm all for safer vehicles but cars are and can be a weapon if used improperly. I don't think anyone here would want self aiming or self firing guns, and I think self driving cars can be just as dangerous down the road.

(10-30-2015 12:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I favor actually driving the car rather than any "self driving" car for the primary reason that I want to be the one in control, not the car.

Well, and of course it wouldn't be the car in control anyway. It would be another colossal bureaucracy of faceless, nameless, unaccountable know-it-all Nanny-Staters that would know "what's best for us".

Governors on cars, no doubt, restrictions on where and when you could go certain places, at what speeds, what times and a thousand other decisions we make on the road each day.

No thanks.

This post is an example of why self driving cars will be a partisan issue.

(10-30-2015 12:57 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I favor actually driving the car rather than any "self driving" car for the primary reason that I want to be the one in control, not the car.

Well, and of course it wouldn't be the car in control anyway. It would be another colossal bureaucracy of faceless, nameless, unaccountable know-it-all Nanny-Staters that would know "what's best for us".

Governors on cars, no doubt, restrictions on where and when you could go certain places, at what speeds, what times and a thousand other decisions we make on the road each day.

No thanks.

This post is an example of why self driving cars will be a partisan issue.

If you believe individual freedom is partisan, then perhaps so. I view it as having been endowed by our Creator. NOT bestowed by Government.

(10-30-2015 12:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I favor actually driving the car rather than any "self driving" car for the primary reason that I want to be the one in control, not the car.

Well, and of course it wouldn't be the car in control anyway. It would be another colossal bureaucracy of faceless, nameless, unaccountable know-it-all Nanny-Staters that would know "what's best for us".

Governors on cars, no doubt, restrictions on where and when you could go certain places, at what speeds, what times and a thousand other decisions we make on the road each day.

No thanks.

That's one heck of an imagination. I'm sure if you keep your foil hat on, all will be okay.

I'd love to be able to go on a road trip and put on auto-pilot mode and go to sleep.

For city driving though, I'd rather just do it myself.

(10-30-2015 01:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I favor actually driving the car rather than any "self driving" car for the primary reason that I want to be the one in control, not the car.

Well, and of course it wouldn't be the car in control anyway. It would be another colossal bureaucracy of faceless, nameless, unaccountable know-it-all Nanny-Staters that would know "what's best for us".

Governors on cars, no doubt, restrictions on where and when you could go certain places, at what speeds, what times and a thousand other decisions we make on the road each day.

No thanks.

That's one heck of an imagination. I'm sure if you keep your foil hat on, all will be okay.

Many cars already come with "Black boxes" that record all kinds of information. That info isn't for you , it's for insurance companies and the police. So, what he said isn't totally out of the realm of possibility.

(10-30-2015 01:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I favor actually driving the car rather than any "self driving" car for the primary reason that I want to be the one in control, not the car.

Well, and of course it wouldn't be the car in control anyway. It would be another colossal bureaucracy of faceless, nameless, unaccountable know-it-all Nanny-Staters that would know "what's best for us".

Governors on cars, no doubt, restrictions on where and when you could go certain places, at what speeds, what times and a thousand other decisions we make on the road each day.

No thanks.

That's one heck of an imagination. I'm sure if you keep your foil hat on, all will be okay.

Took very little imagination actually. For me, anyway.

If it becomes the norm that cars are self-driven, then they will necessarily need to be regulated for the "common good", wouldn't you think the argument would go?

Well, who's gonna do that? You? "Self-regulate"? Nope. The insurance co.s and other pressure groups will scream "if it saves one life" and we'll see our ability to move about freely intruded upon.

It will be considered "mass transit" and who runs the trains, buses etc? Individuals? Nope. Governments.

(10-30-2015 01:14 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:57 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I favor actually driving the car rather than any "self driving" car for the primary reason that I want to be the one in control, not the car.

Well, and of course it wouldn't be the car in control anyway. It would be another colossal bureaucracy of faceless, nameless, unaccountable know-it-all Nanny-Staters that would know "what's best for us".

Governors on cars, no doubt, restrictions on where and when you could go certain places, at what speeds, what times and a thousand other decisions we make on the road each day.

No thanks.

This post is an example of why self driving cars will be a partisan issue.

If you believe individual freedom is partisan, then perhaps so. I view it as having been endowed by our Creator. NOT bestowed by Government.

You're the one that jumped to the conclusion that automated cars will be mandated.

Even if a politician was pushing for it (I'm sure many will), it's not a valid argument against automated cars in general.

I honestly can't wait for self driving cars.