# The big question about driverless cars... [WashPo 2/18/16]



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ems-to-have-an-answer-to/?wpisrc=nl_pdrainbow
*The big question about driverless cars no one seems able to answer*
Washington Post 2/18/16




  




​
*Will carmakers be to blame for driverless crashes?*
*Will my car insurance change?*
*Different degrees of automation pose a real headache.*
*But what about the ability of the human driver?*
*If this is so complicated, why does Google want anything to do with it?*
Some states have addressed this by proposing that *all self-driving cars must have a licensed driver behind a physical steering wheel at all times*, effectively ensuring that only those who can pass today's driving tests will be allowed to operate a driverless car.
​California is a good example. It floated draft rules in December that said precisely that. The plan drew protests from Google, which prefers to think that steering wheels will become obsolete.

If California's rules move forward, that will mean one of two things: A) California will be modifying its driving tests somehow in the future to accommodate "worse" drivers; or B) seniors and disabled people won't be able to take advantage of driverless cars unless someone with a valid license is with them when they get in the car.


----------



## JHawk (Oct 27, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *Will carmakers be to blame for driverless crashes?*




I remember in the "60 minutes" piece about self driving cars reps from both Mercedes and Google flat-out stated that they will be willing to eat the liability for any accident where their autonomous cars are found to be at fault. The key phrase however, is "at fault." Because they're currently programming the cars to follow the vehicle code "to-the-letter", they can afford to make those statements. It's an interesting end-run around the potential liability issue, but as they're finding out, vehicles strictly adhering to the vehicle code and "rules of the road" can cause problems because they drive "too perfectly" in a real world scenario.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Personally I think navigation needs too much improvement for driverless cars to work. I've found (at least in Orlando) that GPS navigation only gets you 99% of the way there. If the driverless cars can't figure out that their destination (or pickup address) isn't accurate, which they won't be able to, how is this supposed to work?

"Vehicle TRV194 has arrived at the pickup location" someone gets in a text message.
"Where the F is the car that's supposed to pick me up?" they wonder.
They walk outside and don't see any cars at all.
They get charged a no-show fee.

YOUR driving to pick someone up, the GPS doesn't actually correspond to the house numbers so you drive down the street slowly until you see the house, you park and they come out.



Let's not forget that sometimes GPS navigators want us to do something illegal/impossible to get there.


This whole thing isn't going to work.
Almost every ride (or taxi fare to be honest) the navigation doesn't get me to the proper pickup. Sometimes it will get me to the building but you may have to go around the block to park somewhere. Sometimes there is no parking. Human creativity is the only thing that allows a pickup to be possible on a truly astounding number of rides. A self driving car could never allow for the flexibility to BS our way through it.


These are real obstacles that need to be straightened out before a self driving car can work. And a driverless vehicle for hire? You really think those things won't become roving cesspools in less than 4 hours?


----------



## efilyojne (Feb 6, 2016)

What happens when a some a double parked UPS driver blocks the 18 wheeler on a one lane street and everyone starts to back up? What happens when a traffic agent detours you because of construction? What happens in the midtown stop and go traffic. I see those driverless cars maybe working in the suburbs, I just don't see it happening in NYC. I am not sure I would step into a car without a driver even if there were answers to the above questions. It feels like a death trap waiting to happen. The only exception is if there were driverless car lanes or avenues. Oh geez, the thought.


----------



## andaas (May 19, 2015)

Driverless cars aren't a death trap, unless you consider starvation being the cause of death. The car will be "safe", and it will simply take an extremely long time to get where it's going in those situations.


----------



## efilyojne (Feb 6, 2016)

andaas said:


> Driverless cars aren't a death trap, unless you consider starvation being the cause of death. The car will be "safe", and it will simply take an extremely long time to get where it's going in those situations.


Lol- I mean seriously. The art of driving through NYC midtown traffic is cutting across lanes, turning up not so crowded streets. The driverless cars will be in "sensor" hell. They won't move. They will be like that clueless timid driver that lets everyone cut in front of them, including the drivers directly behind.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

efilyojne said:


> Lol- I mean seriously. The art of driving through NYC midtown traffic is cutting across lanes, turning up not so crowded streets. The driverless cars will be in "sensor" hell. They won't move. They will be like that clueless timid driver that lets everyone cut in front of them, including the drivers directly behind.


yeah, but like the other guy said, it'll probably take a long time to get to places. they will probably always do speed limit so cars will always honk at them. they wont be agressive at busy crosswalks. they may never ever make a right turn because they need the crosswalk to be free of pedestrians withing a 30 foot radius. Pax wont like the long time getting to places. It's still just so many variables that can happen with a driverless car. I can't believe a computer guy has programmed infinity scenarios into the car's computer

like in my downtown in thick rush hour traffic, you might have to jump out there in the middle and have your car stick out so the other side that has green will have to go around you. A driverless car would never get into the intersection unless it knows it can go tot he other side without being stuck in the middle due to traffic. meantime cars to the driver's car's right are making right turns since the driverless car doesn't move. meaning they are now filling up the area that the driverless car would need to make a move. Ultimately meaning the driverless car wouldn't move across the intersection until rush hour is over lol

will they program the car to make certain "small" illegal moves? (like partially blocking other traffic in an intersection box)

Also, google is saying their car would never get into an accident. Are they saying they finally have a computer that is mistake/glitch fee? were an error is simply not possible?


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

Cars driving themselves will be the end of uber.


Drunks will just have their vehicle drive them.
Other companies with actual car fleets will join the fray. I.e. how will uber a "technology company" be able to compete with general motors launching a similar service.
Crime, some of you seem to live in la la land or great suburbs. In the inner cities & rural areas, those shiny new vehicles full of parts are just too easy. Hell, some1 could has the damn things. It would be a caravan of cars that stole themselves.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

dirtylee said:


> Cars driving themselves will be the end of uber.
> 
> 
> Drunks will just have their vehicle drive them.
> ...


OMG... new arguments against driverless cars working for vehicle for hire situations. Thank you.


----------

