Will driverless cars save lives? (more than 130 collisions)

[bloomen]

Going on how goddamn dim and dangerous the tiny amount of 'active safety' systems I've sampled have been, I won't be handing over complete control without several years or decades of near flawless service.

However I assume controlling one's own car will be illegal long before they're actually satsifactory.

[PF62]

bloomen said:

Going on how goddamn dim and dangerous the tiny amount of 'active safety' systems I've sampled have been, I won't be handing over complete control without several years or decades of near flawless service.

Exactly my point.

Are active safety systems perfect - no they are not. However even though they are not perfect do they prevent some deaths or serious injuries that would otherwise have occurred - yes they do.

People are seeking perfection from driverless cars, and will struggle to accept the use of them resulting in any deaths or injuries.

[FMOB]

NFT said:

PF62 said:

The straightforward answer is - Yes.

However if you are asking the question - "Will driverless cars kill nobody" then the answer is - No, they will kill some people.

Some of those people killed will be occupants of the car and some of those people will be people on the street nearby. And that is nothing to do with the systems, as just moving vehicles in towns are dangerous unless you remove pedestrians and moving vehicles at speed on the road are subject to adverse weather.

Thus the question is whether society is ready to hand over the killing of people from human drivers to machines, even if the number of people killed by the machines is fewer than those killed by humans, and if people are prepared to think about it, then what is the 'acceptable' number?

For the year to June 2023 there were 1,633 road fatalities and 29,429 seriously injured.

If the government proposed a wholesale move to driverless cars, and that would result in only 163 deaths and 2,942 seriously injured a year then would the public accept that?

I rather doubt they would, and instead they would insist on zero deaths and zero seriously injured before they considered the driverless cars to be 'safe'.

I believe we have already handed it over to machines to some extent, ABS and traction control are a simple AI like system, or should we consider them an Aid as they have no consciousness matrix to make decisions from.

Perhaps an AI that comprehensively perceives something, calculates risk with due considerations like a human being, then acts before the driver does would become an acceptable trade from the "dangerous machines" using optics and the postal system, perhaps the lack of upset drivers on the road in "the motions" for months would be better, and It wouldn't try reprogram people disregarding of the risk it beings..

Edited by NFT on Saturday 17th February 17:19

Abs and traction controls AI like? Nope.

[NFT]

FMOB said:

Abs and traction controls AI like? Nope.

Indeed, they are not like AI, but they kind of take control and assist driving in an intervention if conditions are met.

I believe AI would not just perceive an issue, but consider other factors in a more comprehensive way, likely with a 360 view and factoring things perhaps not considered important by the average commuter, it could result in preventative action superior to that drivers capacity, which is where it gets a bit scary if the car just snatches control and you have no idea why. Would be different from ABS & traction control, that's for sure.

[The Wookie]

PF62 said:

That's the issue - 'convinced'.

Would they be 'convinced' if the death toll fell in the US to the UK level or would they still believe that driverless cars are dangerous - of course they wouldn't as they would blame all those deaths on those dangerous driverless cars, rather than recognising that many people are alive because those driverless cars have replaced more dangerous human driven cars.

IMHO the main problem is that there’s a broad spectrum of drivers but in reality the ones dangerous enough to kill people are very few and far between. Plus we forgive or sympathise with the marginal drivers to a greater or lesser extent who end up in fatal accidents through no major fault of their own.

You can’t risk having a marginal autonomous driver otherwise you could end up with thousands of effectively dangerous vehicles, so the bar for safety needs to be very high otherwise the statistics could swing extraordinarily quickly. Also there will be no sympathy for the AI drivers that experience more ‘low fault’ accidents than others.

[NFT]

The Wookie said:

IMHO the main problem is that there’s a broad spectrum of drivers but in reality the ones dangerous enough to kill people are very few and far between. Plus we forgive or sympathise with the marginal drivers to a greater or lesser extent who end up in fatal accidents through no major fault of their own.

You can’t risk having a marginal autonomous driver otherwise you could end up with thousands of effectively dangerous vehicles, so the bar for safety needs to be very high otherwise the statistics could swing extraordinarily quickly. Also there will be no sympathy for the AI drivers that experience more ‘low fault’ accidents than others.

And there is a foreseeable potential AI gets it correct, snatching control and causing an accident because of a sensory error or misinterpretation of one input like laser sensory reflection, contamination by other sources, and road glare/heat rising if prioritizing imagery.

In a similar way to the situation where an overturned Semi-Trailer was confused for blue sky and clear road in the past.

[soupdragon1]

One of the biggest issues is rogue agents like Tesla, putting the whole initiative on the back foot with outright manipulation of statistics, incomplete software and horrendous redundancy systems. People have lost trust, unsurprisingly.

The UK Govt at least look to be set to ensuring these rogue agents don't find there way onto our roads, but we're small fry over here. We need global big tech companies to pick up the bat and do it right. It's a miss mash mess as it is currently.

[PF62]

The Wookie said:

IMHO the main problem is that there’s a broad spectrum of drivers but in reality the ones dangerous enough to kill people are very few and far between. Plus we forgive or sympathise with the marginal drivers to a greater or lesser extent who end up in fatal accidents through no major fault of their own.

Again, that's the issue.

With many accidents that result in deaths or serious injuries drivers either think that they wouldn't have done that, or alternatively that they might have done something that stupid and are prepared to give the driver the benefit of the doubt - and that is why it is such a high hurdle to get someone convicted of causing death by dangerous (or even careless) driving.

But a machine - well I could have done better and no sympathy at all from most drivers, so perfection is expected.

The Wookie said:

You can’t risk having a marginal autonomous driver otherwise you could end up with thousands of effectively dangerous vehicles, so the bar for safety needs to be very high otherwise the statistics could swing extraordinarily quickly.

But how high?

With 1,633 road fatalities and 29,429 seriously injured last year would you accept that figure to be cut by 90% if there were only driverless cars, so 163 dead? I doubt people would.

[The Wookie]

PF62 said:

But how high?

With 1,633 road fatalities and 29,429 seriously injured last year would you accept that figure to be cut by 90% if there were only driverless cars, so 163 dead? I doubt people would.

I don’t think it will be a wholesale sudden change, so it’ll end up being a personal choice in circumstances where it’s available and as a result an acclimation period for society to catch up with technology

Also, as I mentioned before were unlikely to get full door-to-door autonomy for the foreseeable so people are most likely to experience it in less dynamic situations or in controlled environments where it’s at its best, or even with a steering wheel in front of them so they can take charge if they’re uncomfortable with what the vehicle is doing

[PF62]

The Wookie said:

I don’t think it will be a wholesale sudden change, so it’ll end up being a personal choice in circumstances where it’s available and as a result an acclimation period for society to catch up with technology

Which will make the situation worse, since people will only see the deaths driverless vehicles are involved in, and won't receive there has been any benefits.

The Wookie said:

Also, as I mentioned before were unlikely to get full door-to-door autonomy for the foreseeable so people are most likely to experience it in less dynamic situations or in controlled environments where it’s at its best, or even with a steering wheel in front of them so they can take charge if they’re uncomfortable with what the vehicle is doing

Or will just allow them to continue to drive dangerously.

[FMOB]

NFT said:

FMOB said:

Abs and traction controls AI like? Nope.

Indeed, they are not like AI, but they kind of take control and assist driving in an intervention if conditions are met.

I believe AI would not just perceive an issue, but consider other factors in a more comprehensive way, likely with a 360 view and factoring things perhaps not considered important by the average commuter, it could result in preventative action superior to that drivers capacity, which is where it gets a bit scary if the car just snatches control and you have no idea why. Would be different from ABS & traction control, that's for sure.

Interesting point about how the 'system' would take control and perception of this action by the driver. My daily driver has the active lane assist that is on by default (thank you NCAP for that one ) and it only works properly under certain conditions but does not have the ability to realise that road conditions aren't suitable and not interfere. Gets turned off everytime the car is started.

Everyone reacts differently to the input from driver aids so this will an on-going issue/friction until fully autonomous vehicles arrive without any mechanism for driver input beyond where to go.

[PF62]

FMOB said:

My daily driver has the active lane assist that is on by default (thank you NCAP for that one ) and it only works properly under certain conditions but does not have the ability to realise that road conditions aren't suitable and not interfere. Gets turned off everytime the car is started.

And then there is the driver who is heading towards you at 60mph and is falling asleep with their car starting to drift into the oncoming lane.

Will you be lucky that the sleeping driver didn't have the same contempt for the lane assist system that you have and it pulls their car back at the last moment, or will your family be shedding tears as your coffin is lowered into the ground wishing the other driver hadn't disabled the imperfect system every time they got in the car.

[Southerner]

PF62 said:

FMOB said:

My daily driver has the active lane assist that is on by default (thank you NCAP for that one ) and it only works properly under certain conditions but does not have the ability to realise that road conditions aren't suitable and not interfere. Gets turned off everytime the car is started.

And then there is the driver who is heading towards you at 60mph and is falling asleep with their car starting to drift into the oncoming lane.

Will you be lucky that the sleeping driver didn't have the same contempt for the lane assist system that you have and it pulls their car back at the last moment, or will your family be shedding tears as your coffin is lowered into the ground wishing the other driver hadn't disabled the imperfect system every time they got in the car.

Jesus, really? What about the coffin going into the ground after some shonky ‘driver aid’ caused an accident, ever considered that?

[Forester1965]

I'd be more worried for the cyclists who my lane assist seems to aim for when it gets spooked by an anomaly on the centre line or a bus pulling out. It's a stupid system you don't need 99.9% of the time.

[PF62]

Southerner said:

Jesus, really? What about the coffin going into the ground after some shonky ‘driver aid’ caused an accident, ever considered that?

But that's the whole point from my earlier comments!

Do these imperfect systems save more lives than the people they kill. If a system saved 1,000 lives a year but killed 10 should it be implemented or not.

Obviously the families of the 10 would say no and that it is an awful system and should be banned, particularly when nobody would be able to identify the 1,000 still alive because of the system.

[PF62]

Forester1965 said:

I'd be more worried for the cyclists who my lane assist seems to aim for when it gets spooked by an anomaly on the centre line or a bus pulling out. It's a stupid system you don't need 99.9% of the time.

Sounds like you either have a crappy car or a broken system, as mine never does that.

[Forester1965]

PF62 said:

Sounds like you either have a crappy car or a broken system, as mine never does that.

It's a SEAT/Cupra Formentor thing, so whatever system VW/Audi/Porsche etc use.

You're right though, it IS crappy.

[PF62]

Forester1965 said:

PF62 said:

Sounds like you either have a crappy car or a broken system, as mine never does that.

It's a SEAT/Cupra Formentor thing, so whatever system VW/Audi/Porsche etc use.

You're right though, it IS crappy.

I could have predicted that.

Every time someone moans about lane keep assist and that it is dangerous, it turns out they are always driving a VAG vehicle, every single time.

[Forester1965]

I switch it off 95% of journeys (the 5% are when I forget). Sadly it means you either have to delve i to the slow and unresponsive touchscreen or 5 button presses on the steering wheel to do it.

[S366]

PF62 said:

Forester1965 said:

I'd be more worried for the cyclists who my lane assist seems to aim for when it gets spooked by an anomaly on the centre line or a bus pulling out. It's a stupid system you don't need 99.9% of the time.

Sounds like you either have a crappy car or a broken system, as mine never does that.

Really? I’ve had numerous cars that have had systems that acted against what should be done. Like Forester mentioned, when pulling out to go past a cyclist, I have also had many cars that will actively try to pull back towards the cyclist, obviously I have my hands on the wheel so can easily override what the car wants to do, but if I didn’t, I’m pretty confident that the car would collide with the cyclist.
I’ve experienced this with cars from a few different manufacturers (BMW, Honda and Audi). The Audi was the worst for auto braking though, I had to disable it as there was one particular spot near my old office where cars were parked at the side of the road, but no matter how early I pulled out to pass them, it would hammer on the brakes.