PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Driverless cars
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Transport
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13968
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LJ, forgive me, what you've raised is something of a quagmire and I haven't the intellect for resolving it but I honestly find the discussion fascinating.
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
I'd welcome that, though naturally the same (most likely more) money would have to be extracted from former car owners.

We hardly use our vehicle privately anyway - 'saving up' journeys to complete jobs in one go is what we do anyway, though I know we're odd that way. Laughing

Having said that, I use the car a lot for gigs and an AV would be perfect for those (outside rush hours, long boring journeys, tiredness etc).


I can see a high utilisation communal AV being cheaper than the current model of car ownership, in spite of all the technology involved. Between depreciation, insurance, VED, MOT, loan interest, breakdown and servicing you've got a hefty annual bill (even before you think about fueling it) for something that is only in use about 5% of the time! The fixed costs are in the 20p-30p/mile mark.

Increase that utilisation to 30%-50%, make it electric and I can quite believe that the total cost of operation could be the same or less than what we pay now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13968
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to admit, I like optimism. Wink
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smile

Well the way we get around now is a spectacular waste of resources so all I'm saying is that it could / should be possible to reduce costs as part of a transition like this, but one thing that you can rely on with the automotive industry is that they will take a good thing and **** it up given half a chance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9810
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just swapping over cars to AVs won't make much of a difference to traffic problems although it should make some difference. The speed of AVs can be optimised to keep traffic moving rather than having the stop/start traffic that we suffer from now. AV's, especially EV AVs, could be smaller thus taking up less room and the running distance between could be shorter to nil thus taking up even less room.

The real advantage would come with a properly integrated transport system with bulk transport on the trunk routes fed by individual units on the more spread out parts of the system. The secret will be to get us out of our individual cocoons into a shared space at some point in the journey.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3375

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That certainly be a secret, probably forever.
_________________
If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 4264
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking forward, once you get a high percentage of AVs in an urban area they can all be controlled by GPS and a central computer to maximize traffic flow and control. The human drivers following behind them would chafe at the slow ones, but would not mind arriving at intersections just as the light turns green. A lot of fuel could be saved that way. Also fully AV vehicles would need no steering wheel or pedals or any gauges for that matter reducing the weight of the vehicle and if accidents become a remote possibility a lot of safety equipment could be stripped away further reducing fuel waste.
Also a central computer could allow second and third passengers to be picked up enroute to divide the cost of those passengers willing to share the ride.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5664
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If the entire road fleet was AV and interactions with pedestrians were removed, there would be much less of an issue. But, as long as humans and machines interact in ways that require moral decision making, there always will be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 4264
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
If the entire road fleet was AV and interactions with pedestrians were removed, there would be much less of an issue. But, as long as humans and machines interact in ways that require moral decision making, there always will be.

Do you think it will be impossible to devise AV's that have better judgement then a new teen age driver or Joe six pack on his way home from the pub?
Of course it will never be perfect but is that the line?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5664
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Firstly, "better" or "worse" moral judgment is not merely a technical issue that can be solved if only we devise good enough technology. It is, instead, based on values and these are subjective to both an individual and a culture and the two are not always going to be in alignment.

Secondly, even assuming that we built into such devices a set of moral parameters to their decision making that fell broadly in line with contemporary cultural expectations, it seems to me that the AI could never be programmed to account for every possible moral dilemma that might be faced. And, I should say, this is not merely an issue with cars. It applies to any arena where health and safety are involved and the AI system is not merely carrying out actions that have been decided by a human, but are actually making those decisions themselves in real time. But, machines cannot be held responsible for their actions because they are not conscious, sentient beings. The only way the above circle could be conceivably squared would be if the programmers of that AI took moral responsibility for the decisions of the AI by proxy. But, that will never happen precisely because every possible moral dilemma facing them will be impossible to predict.

This is what irks me so much That is to say, the technocratic notion that this can all be just solved with technology. It can't. It is not a technological problem, in the end, It is a philosophical one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13968
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It may or may not be relevant, but someone once wrote, "If decisions were made on the basis of deaths caused, heroin would be legal and cars illegal." I find myself nodding. Cool
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5664
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It certainly makes some sense, if only for the sake of organizational brevity, to base overarching social policy on utilitarian principles. But, even then, one has to be careful not to disincentive personal responsibility in the people such policies are aimed at.

However, to try and apply those same utilitarian principles in terms the mechanizing of fined-grained, real-time, morally consequential decisions is to invite all kinds of intractable moral quagmires. Not to mention, it represents a line of reasoning whose end place is not somewhere you want to go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 4264
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To crash or not to crash is not a moral decision. The most difficult decision a driver has to make is what to do if an oncoming vehicle comes into your lane and threatens a head on collision. Drivers are taught to swerve off the road and risk hitting a fixed object over taking on the oncoming vehicle at speed. The robot vehicle can be given the same instructions and will follow them correctly more often then humans that weren't paying attention in class.
The Av robot always has it's eyes on the road and checking it's mirrors (radars actually) and is not ever texting while driving, tuning the radio or drinking coffee and always comes to a full stop at stop signs. The only thing a human may do better is drive in snow if they know how.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5664
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
cubes



Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 565
Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have heard some time ago that increasing car safety (pre-selfdriving) has decreased the organ pool causing poorer organs to be used. Hopefully this will all be moot at some time in the future if a persons organs can be grown and then transplanted without the need to anti-rejection drugs.

I'd reference something but I want to go to bed and everything I google comes up with speculation about driverless cars and organ donation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Transport All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group