Will driverless cars help remote resorts?

[cdskier]

+1 Add to that drivers with the right-of-way who simply decide to stop to let opposing traffic make left turns, for no logical reason.

Agreed. I've had people do that in front of me before and I really wish there was a way to communicate with them to say "Are you kidding me? Do you not understand how right of way works?" People that do things that go against the standard right of way just causes additional confusion and makes things worse (even though they may think what they are doing is "nice").

 

[ThinkSnow]

agreed. I've had people do that in front of me before and i really wish there was a way to communicate with them to say "are you kidding me? Do you not understand how right of way works?" people that do things that go against the standard right of way just causes additional confusion and makes things worse (even though they may think what they are doing is "nice").

exactly!!!

 

[kbroderick]

This attitude is what terrifies me.

So driverless cars are preferable to cautious drivers who stay below the speed limit and follow all traffic directions? WOW!

Yes. If you can't drive at least the speed limit under normal conditions, you shouldn't be driving, and your inability to operate a vehicle at a reasonable rate inhibits normal traffic movement, often creating situations where competent and rational drivers are forced to choose between contributing to the problem you're creating or making questionable passes around your traffic-obstructing vehicle.

Although that might actually be a false dichotomy, because being too cautious is one of the faults of current self-driving vehicles.

 

[JimG.]

Yes. If you can't drive at least the speed limit under normal conditions, you shouldn't be driving, and your inability to operate a vehicle at a reasonable rate inhibits normal traffic movement, often creating situations where competent and rational drivers are forced to choose between contributing to the problem you're creating or making questionable passes around your traffic-obstructing vehicle.

Although that might actually be a false dichotomy, because being too cautious is one of the faults of current self-driving vehicles.

So all you folks who are so hung up about cars going slower than the speed limit are going to be happier in a vehicle that will never exceed the speed limit at all? My experience is that drivers who are impatient with slower drivers are most likely to also be speeders.

I guess the new autonomous cars will have to have steering wheels and dashboards for you road ragers to pound on.

 

[kbroderick]

Stopping at intersections with no stop sign or traffic light where you have the right of way is not a "cautious" driver following traffic directions. That's outright dangerous.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I also don't think it is acceptable either for a driverless car to have anything less than a near perfect standard of safety and accuracy before they are allowed. Being "as good as humans" is not good enough.

"As good as humans" isn't good enough, but 10% better than humans should be acceptable, because you're increasing overall safety. The reality is that—as a society—we like to operate on irrational fears rather than confusing things like data and science, so we're probably going to keep rejecting the widespread acceptance of self-driving vehicles until they are much, much better than human drivers.

As someone who has spent most of his life in areas that regularly see snowy roads, I think that self-driving vehicles with appropriate software and sensors have a good chance to outperform most drivers who don't regularly drive in slippery conditions. It's relatively easy to convince a software program to follow best practices and not brake when encountering "scary" conditions, but convincing a human to do so is a lot harder because you have to override the natural instinct to respond to fear by stomping on the slow-down pedal. With the ability to poll individual wheel traction levels many times a second, I fully expect that an autonomous vehicle could outperform all but the most-accomplished human drivers in the snow, just as modern ABS can.

 

[kbroderick]

So all you folks who are so hung up about cars going slower than the speed limit are going to be happier in a vehicle that will never exceed the speed limit at all? My experience is that drivers who are impatient with slower drivers are most likely to also be speeders.

I guess the new autonomous cars will have to have steering wheels and dashboards for you road ragers to pound on.

I'm hoping that one result is speed limits getting set appropriately using the 85th percentile, rather than local politics and general acceptance of speed limits that are too damn low.

Plus, if autonomous rigs are programmed to follow traffic laws, they shouldn't be obstructing traffic, either (most states require that you get out of the way if you get a line of traffic behind you, regardless of how fast you think traffic should be going).

 

[Glenn]

So all you folks who are so hung up about cars going slower than the speed limit are going to be happier in a vehicle that will never exceed the speed limit at all? My experience is that drivers who are impatient with slower drivers are most likely to also be speeders.

I guess the new autonomous cars will have to have steering wheels and dashboards for you road ragers to pound on.

Some areas may have pretty high speed limits based on the present conditions. Similar to how trains operate in areas where there aren't any crossings for a number of miles.

 

[JimG.]

I'm hoping that one result is speed limits getting set appropriately using the 85th percentile, rather than local politics and general acceptance of speed limits that are too damn low.

Plus, if autonomous rigs are programmed to follow traffic laws, they shouldn't be obstructing traffic, either (most states require that you get out of the way if you get a line of traffic behind you, regardless of how fast you think traffic should be going).

You use words like "hope" and "politics". Good luck with that.

 

[JimG.]

Some areas may have pretty high speed limits based on the present conditions. Similar to how trains operate in areas where there aren't any crossings for a number of miles.

You mean like Nevada and Wyoming?

Are we all finding ourselves driving frequently in these places?

 

[kbroderick]

You use words like "hope" and "politics". Good luck with that.

Get on I-93 in the Boston metro area and try doing the speed limit, and you'll see pretty quickly that society in general doesn't accept the posted speed limit. The current solution in most places is that cops don't enforce the speed limit as posted (nor can they, if most drivers are above it); they use some arbitrarily higher number, and/or pick targets they think might turn up other issues. If autonomous cars are programmed to operate at the speed limit rather than the speed of traffic (and I'm not sure they will be, as the latter is safer), they might just provide the impetus for enough people to work for rational speed limits.

 

[JimG.]

Get on I-93 in the Boston metro area and try doing the speed limit, and you'll see pretty quickly that society in general doesn't accept the posted speed limit. The current solution in most places is that cops don't enforce the speed limit as posted (nor can they, if most drivers are above it); they use some arbitrarily higher number, and/or pick targets they think might turn up other issues. If autonomous cars are programmed to operate at the speed limit rather than the speed of traffic (and I'm not sure they will be, as the latter is safer), they might just provide the impetus for enough people to work for rational speed limits.

No thanks, I have plenty of experience on I-87 out of NYC. Same crap.

I do not deny the fact that most people are dangerous and clueless drivers. IMO the solution to that is re-licensing exams every 5 years for all US drivers. Make it a federal law. Giving someone a license at the age of 16 and then saying good luck you're set to drive for life is irresponsible at best.

To me, taking dangerous drivers and putting them in an autonomous box only creates dangerous passengers.

 

[mikec142]

"As good as humans" isn't good enough, but 10% better than humans should be acceptable, because you're increasing overall safety. The reality is that—as a society—we like to operate on irrational fears rather than confusing things like data and science, so we're probably going to keep rejecting the widespread acceptance of self-driving vehicles until they are much, much better than human drivers.

As someone who has spent most of his life in areas that regularly see snowy roads, I think that self-driving vehicles with appropriate software and sensors have a good chance to outperform most drivers who don't regularly drive in slippery conditions. It's relatively easy to convince a software program to follow best practices and not brake when encountering "scary" conditions, but convincing a human to do so is a lot harder because you have to override the natural instinct to respond to fear by stomping on the slow-down pedal. With the ability to poll individual wheel traction levels many times a second, I fully expect that an autonomous vehicle could outperform all but the most-accomplished human drivers in the snow, just as modern ABS can.

You hit the nail on the head. Irrational fear instead of data and facts are already dominating the conversation. If autonomous driving is literally 1% safer than today's human standards, it's an improvement. Now I get that reality is that autonomous driving will be held to a ridiculous standard but even a marginal improvement would save lives.

Just curious...how many of you have driven a Tesla that had the auto drive function? I get bored easily so for fun (they aren't in my price range) I've test driven the Model S and the Model 3. I've used the auto drive in both and frankly have been blown away. I'm not talking about just auto drive on a straight highway. I'm talking about auto drive on a winding road. Literally amazing.

 

[abc]

You hit the nail on the head. Irrational fear instead of data and facts are already dominating the conversation. If autonomous driving is literally 1% safer than today's human standards, it's an improvement. Now I get that reality is that autonomous driving will be held to a ridiculous standard but even a marginal improvement would save lives.

You miss an important point between machine and human.

Machine will make the SAME mistake EVERY SINGLE TIME! Humans? They may make mistake SOMETIMES. Some will even make the same mistake more than once. Most won't. Current licensing and insurance setup kind of help achieve that.

So yes, machine NEED to be made many times better than AVERAGE human. They need to be AT LEAST as good as the best 10% drivers.

Now, if the self-driving cars can actually achieve that, then there's reason to argue to TAKE AWAY licenses from those that are at the bottom n%. They will only be allowed to be passengers, in a self-driving car no less.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Batteries will need to get better.

During these recent single digit temps, a news article came out stating vehicles like TSLA only get roughly 70% of their posted miles-per-charge (which is already somewhat uninspiring) in the cold. Given ski areas are in below freezing areas, that's an issue when discussing the long-distance drives talked about in this thread. A few areas do have electric charging stations (Vail, etc..) and eventually they'll become commonplace, but you need to get there first.

 

[mikec142]

Batteries will need to get better.

During these recent single digit temps, a news article came out stating vehicles like TSLA only get roughly 70% of their posted miles-per-charge (which is already somewhat uninspiring) in the cold. Given ski areas are in below freezing areas, that's an issue when discussing the long-distance drives talked about in this thread. A few areas do have electric charging stations (Vail, etc..) and eventually they'll become commonplace, but you need to get there first.

Sugarbush has charging stations. But you are right. Batteries don't perform as well in temperature extremes.

That said, while it would be environmentally preferred to have self driving cars be electric, it's not required. It could still be gas powered.

 

[mikec142]

You miss an important point between machine and human.

Machine will make the SAME mistake EVERY SINGLE TIME! Humans? They may make mistake SOMETIMES. Some will even make the same mistake more than once. Most won't. Current licensing and insurance setup kind of help achieve that.

So yes, machine NEED to be made many times better than AVERAGE human. They need to be AT LEAST as good as the best 10% drivers.

Now, if the self-driving cars can actually achieve that, then there's reason to argue to TAKE AWAY licenses from those that are at the bottom n%. They will only be allowed to be passengers, in a self-driving car no less.

I'm not so sure that I agree with you completely. Humans and machines will make mistakes. But humans are already making more mistakes than machines. And if (thru testing) you can figure out what mistakes the machines make, you can correct them. No matter what, humans will still drive drunk, distracted, while texting, etc. My daily commute is about 30 miles round trip. It's amazing what I witness in the distracted driving department.

Additionally, machines will maintain a certain standard and maybe even improve with software updates. The human driving cycle probably goes something like this...terrible, improving, reached peak performance, maintains high performance levels, slow decline over many years, shouldn't be allowed to drive, yet still does.

 

[cdskier]

I'm not so sure that I agree with you completely. Humans and machines will make mistakes. But humans are already making more mistakes than machines. And if (thru testing) you can figure out what mistakes the machines make, you can correct them. No matter what, humans will still drive drunk, distracted, while texting, etc. My daily commute is about 30 miles round trip. It's amazing what I witness in the distracted driving department.

Additionally, machines will maintain a certain standard and maybe even improve with software updates.

Until someone finds a way to hack into them and intentionally cause "mistakes" at least. Actually I think that was a topic of one of the Hardy Boys mystery novels I read as a kid!

 

[abc]

Humans and machines will make mistakes. But humans are already making more mistakes than machines.

No.

ON AVERAGE, humans are making more mistakes. But half of the human drivers are performing better than average already, and will perform even better with some technology help.

Some of the technology self-drive car are employing is already help good drivers to be better drivers. So unlike the pessimist view, human drivers are also improving.

 

[jamesbond006]

very interested in driverless technology. i'd take it a step further and hope to see neural simulation technology in my lifetime. this would have limitless possibilities and you'd never have to leave your domicile. netflix has 2017 a movie called 'otherlife' that depicted this idea, was very interesting.

 

[kbroderick]

No.

ON AVERAGE, humans are making more mistakes. But half of the human drivers are performing better than average already, and will perform even better with some technology help.

Some of the technology self-drive car are employing is already help good drivers to be better drivers. So unlike the pessimist view, human drivers are also improving.

Do you have stats to back that claim up? I understand the theory, but driver-assistance tech is a double-edged sword insofar as tech labeled as "additional help" get used as "how I do things now", e.g. relying on BLIS rather than doing a head check. In that regard, they can reinforce bad driving and encourage less attention to the task at hand, which isn't going to help.

I'm convinced that at least 70% of the problem with drivers in this country is that we've made things too easy. We keep speed limits so low and make vehicles so easy to drive that you can get away with paying minimal attention most of the time. Cars have gotten light-years better in the past five decades, but how many non-interstate speed limits have gone up to match the better ability of vehicles today? As a result, instead of devoting their attention to driving, people treat their cars as appliances and pay as little attention as they think possible.

Related to autonomous vehicles, I think the people who most want to treat their vehicles as appliances are the most likely to get personal autonomous vehicles, and thus there will be a self-selection effect whereby the worst human drivers will remove themselves from the pool first, thus improving the average human performance as well as the overall average performance (human + autonomous).

Anecdotally, the best example of this I've seen was a girl who I went to high-school with. I'd usually get a ride to school with her (private school, no bus available, and I didn't have a car), and on days that she was on time, it was terrifying—she'd be brushing her hair, fiddling with the radio, and what have you, and her brother and I would have to let her know when she was about to hit the ditch. When she was running late (more common), she'd be going at least 10-20 MPH faster and, because of the higher speed, stay focused on driving.