"Right to Drive" vs. autonomous vehicles

my apologies if this article has been discussed here before.  (I checked the last two pages of recent topics, but I realize that doesn't go back far in time.)  The New Yorker has a story about the Human Driving Association and their worry that autonomous vehicles will become so prevalent that driver-operated cars with normal controls will eventually become illegal.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-fight-for-the-right-to-drive

The H.D.A. imagines a future in which, for safety reasons, human driving is made illegal. To prevent this scenario from coming to pass, it advocates laws requiring carmakers to include a steering wheel in every vehicle; it also argues that every future car should be fully drivable under hundred-per-cent human control. For members of the H.D.A., events like Radwood aren’t purely nostalgic. They’re an expression of resistance. They believe that, in a world of level-five autonomous vehicles, driving a 1991 Volvo GL could become a radical political act. It might make you an outlaw.

Anybody want to discuss this?  

Was going to post this very article. The Human Driving Association's goals sound quite reasonable for now. But at some point a few decades from now, autonomous driving could be far safer than "manual" driving, and preserving the option at that point would amount to pointlessly sacrificing lives over a hobby, behavior I'd want no part of. At some point we should be willing to give up human-driven cars on the street for the safety, efficiency, and speed advantages. The dogmatic, purely ideological approach of "from my cold dead hands" would turn driving enthusiasts into the bad guys in the medium/long term.

At some point it would be better to shift to a right-to-repair/modify and libre software movement approach to autonomous cars. This would avert the more dystopian possibilities.

GameboyRMH said:

Was going to post this very article. The Human Driving Association's goals sound quite reasonable for now. But at some point a few decades from now, autonomous driving could be far safer than "manual" driving, and preserving the option at that point would amount to pointlessly sacrificing lives over a hobby, behavior I'd want no part of. At some point we should be willing to give up human-driven cars on the street for the safety, efficiency, and speed advantages. The dogmatic, purely ideological approach of "from my cold dead hands" would turn driving enthusiasts into the bad guys in the medium/long term.

At some point it would be better to shift to a right-to-repair/modify and libre software movement approach to autonomous cars. This would avert the more dystopian possibilities.

While I absolutely agree that autonomous driving will make our roads safer than they have ever been before, I can't help but resist the idea that I should freely give up my "right to drive". Maybe the American worship of individualism is too deeply engrained for the idea to sit right with me. 

Ultimately these decisions are made by society at large, and I highly doubt driving enthusiasts are going to be able to move the needle on a national level. To me it will be a sad reality when the right to drive is no longer feasible.

The most important quote - IMHO - from the article 

Broussard has a term for the insistence that computers can do everything better than humans can: technochauvinism. “Most of the autonomous-vehicle manufacturers are technochauvinists,” she said. “The big spike in distracted-driving traffic accidents and fatalities in the past several years has been from people texting and driving. The argument that the cars themselves are the problem is not really looking at the correct issue. We would be substantially safer if we put cell-phone-jamming devices in cars. And we already have that technology.”

You're right, though...."right to repair" is a big issue that could help with automobiles, and have with repercussions to areas far beyond that.

We’re already at the point where under normal-ish conditions, the autonomous car is safer than a human controlled one. Hard to argue against that. 

Additionally, their point to keep all cars to able to be “fully drivable under hundred-per-cent human control” is already gone. The automatic braking systems have taken that. You could make an argument that ABS, or automatic transmissions took that out. 

Ultimately, I think it’s a non factor. I’d imagine that 10 years from now the average new car is a plug-in hybrid, and another 10 years the average new car will have an autopilot function. The market will take care of itself—most folks will want to be chauffeured around, and they’ll become the best selling cars; eventually they won’t offer any manually driven cars. We’re about there with manual transmissions. The holdups will be rural areas, dirt roads, odd parking lots, etc. I give the human operated car about 100 years. Probably all it has left. 

Pardon the over-used example, but I think it is quite clear:

It is still legal to ride a horse on the street. Despite what autonomous-alarmists would have you believe. It is slower for the rider, inconveniences everyone in a faster moving vehicle, poses a safety threat, is vastly more expensive, etc, etc, etc. But it is still perfectly legal.

there is no "Right to drive". In NJ at least, it is a privilege. As a Privilege, it can be taken away at any time.

I still think "autonomous cars" are a crack-pot pipe dream to 95% of the country by land area. What works on a sanitary street in a wi-fi and 4G/5G laden city in sunny So-Cal doesn't stand a literal snowballs chance in hell on a rural gravel state highway in Alaska where even GPS gets spotty and the weather ceiling can be measured in inches. Drive through the chuck-hole laden, bike-centric, pedestrians not-looking rainy foggy city of Portland, OR for an even more realistic standard of it not being able to work for myriad reasons. Then there's road hazards, inclement weather, heat waves, cold snaps, terrible or non-existent lane markings, alleys, bad parking lots, detours, bandwidth issues, and the potential litigation from the first pedestrian death and first rider death.

But the thing that will truly break it being instituted as a law is simply cost of ownership. If you go to the wrong side of the railroad tracks, you'll find most people have a pretty tired car that is at least 20, if not 30, years old and usually held together with some pretty ingenious hacks. This population makes up a HUGE percentage of the workforce and are typically underserved (if served at all) by public transportation and the "ride share revolution" hasn't even occurred yet in their part of the world. Even 40, 50 years from now this subset of the population will be driving "regular" cars driven by humans and powered by gasoline, simply because that's all their wages will afford.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

By that logic, motorcycles shouldn't exist.

In reply to Javelin :

Do any of the autonomous vehicle technologies in development now even use WiFi or 4g/5g? I was under the impression that they’re pretty self sufficient. A YouTube video can’t even be relied upon to play smoothly over wireless, driving over wireless is right out. Are you aware of anything actually using wireless in a self driving car?

The beauty of autonomous cars... you won't have to own them. You buy a subscription and when you need a car, the nearest one available comes to you. This actually means less cars in use

I’m gonna drive, berkley them.  I bet I can outrun autonomous cops. My hope is that the cars are better at being predictable than these idiots are so I can safely treat them like the orange cones that they are. 

I don't see making previous legal items illegal as a possibility.  

If that plan was feasible in the US, then old cars would have been banned due to health concerns.  And that's never happened.  

Ex Post Facto is very handy.

Where the hell do we come up with a “right to drive”?  

Driving a privilege, not a right. 

Autonomous cars are much further along then most people think. Volvo has already for some time been doing live tests in Gothenburg, in traffic, with excellent results. That is driving in a busy city, with bicycles, pedestrians, trams, busses, busy intersections, etc. Not only where there no issues, the autonomous cars are already now reactive faster and safer to sudden issues, such as people stepping out into the street, or similar.

There has been 1 accident involving an autonomous car to date: The test car was hit from the side by a driving running a red light.

Javelin said:

I still think "autonomous cars" are a crack-pot pipe dream to 95% of the country by land area. What works on a sanitary street in a wi-fi and 4G/5G laden city in sunny So-Cal doesn't stand a literal snowballs chance in hell on a rural gravel state highway in Alaska where even GPS gets spotty and the weather ceiling can be measured in inches. Drive through the chuck-hole laden, bike-centric, pedestrians not-looking rainy foggy city of Portland, OR for an even more realistic standard of it not being able to work for myriad reasons. Then there's road hazards, inclement weather, heat waves, cold snaps, terrible or non-existent lane markings, alleys, bad parking lots, detours, bandwidth issues, and the potential litigation from the first pedestrian death and first rider death.

But the thing that will truly break it being instituted as a law is simply cost of ownership. If you go to the wrong side of the railroad tracks, you'll find most people have a pretty tired car that is at least 20, if not 30, years old and usually held together with some pretty ingenious hacks. This population makes up a HUGE percentage of the workforce and are typically underserved (if served at all) by public transportation and the "ride share revolution" hasn't even occurred yet in their part of the world. Even 40, 50 years from now this subset of the population will be driving "regular" cars driven by humans and powered by gasoline, simply because that's all their wages will afford.

Disagree.  Believe it or not, this will be solved with healthcare laws. 

Since healthcare is becoming a “right”, then restricting healthcare because of inadequate available transportation will become illegal. Governments (and other transport provider entities) will be required to come up with a system that is free or low cost to the user. 

This has already happened with NEMT businesses (Non-emergency medical transport- I owned a business like this), and with “Obama phones” (poor individuals with no phones were given cellular phones so they could contact their medical providers). 

There is a LOT that can be dumped under the heading of “healthcare”

Javelin said:

I still think "autonomous cars" are a crack-pot pipe dream to 95% of the country by land area. What works on a sanitary street in a wi-fi and 4G/5G laden city in sunny So-Cal doesn't stand a literal snowballs chance in hell on a rural gravel state highway in Alaska where even GPS gets spotty and the weather ceiling can be measured in inches. Drive through the chuck-hole laden, bike-centric, pedestrians not-looking rainy foggy city of Portland, OR for an even more realistic standard of it not being able to work for myriad reasons. Then there's road hazards, inclement weather, heat waves, cold snaps, terrible or non-existent lane markings, alleys, bad parking lots, detours, bandwidth issues, and the potential litigation from the first pedestrian death and first rider death.

But the thing that will truly break it being instituted as a law is simply cost of ownership. If you go to the wrong side of the railroad tracks, you'll find most people have a pretty tired car that is at least 20, if not 30, years old and usually held together with some pretty ingenious hacks. This population makes up a HUGE percentage of the workforce and are typically underserved (if served at all) by public transportation and the "ride share revolution" hasn't even occurred yet in their part of the world. Even 40, 50 years from now this subset of the population will be driving "regular" cars driven by humans and powered by gasoline, simply because that's all their wages will afford.

This. Its my entire career and personal life in a nutshell. We COULD NOT afford to buy a new autonomous car. Hell, we cant afford to buy anything newer than 3 uears old. In addition, i work and live in areas that god forgot he made, let alone with cell phone coverage. Theres no public transit in the vast majority of the areas i cover. Theres no rude shares, etc. Youre lucky to get an uber, and most of our workforce couldnt afford to go to work every day on one. 

So, sure, they may be fine in urban areas and interstates. But in our area, they will be a long ti.e coming.

Am I the only one reading this who immediately started thinking about the lyrics to "Red Barchetta"?

MTechnically said:

GameboyRMH said:

Was going to post this very article. The Human Driving Association's goals sound quite reasonable for now. But at some point a few decades from now, autonomous driving could be far safer than "manual" driving, and preserving the option at that point would amount to pointlessly sacrificing lives over a hobby, behavior I'd want no part of. At some point we should be willing to give up human-driven cars on the street for the safety, efficiency, and speed advantages. The dogmatic, purely ideological approach of "from my cold dead hands" would turn driving enthusiasts into the bad guys in the medium/long term.

At some point it would be better to shift to a right-to-repair/modify and libre software movement approach to autonomous cars. This would avert the more dystopian possibilities.

While I absolutely agree that autonomous driving will make our roads safer than they have ever been before, I can't help but resist the idea that I should freely give up my "right to drive". Maybe the American worship of individualism is too deeply engrained for the idea to sit right with me. 

Ultimately these decisions are made by society at large, and I highly doubt driving enthusiasts are going to be able to move the needle on a national level. To me it will be a sad reality when the right to drive is no longer feasible.

Horses still used the roads well into the 1930’s and later, 4-5 decades past the acceptance of the car.  In fact in some states horses still share the road with cars. For examples come to Amish country.  Their buggy’s only concession is the slow moving vehicle triangle  on the back.  

Horses are still ridden and legal to be ridden on streets in some communities.  Not to mention on private areas like ranches, horserace tracks, etc. 

In case you fail to make the connection, just because there are autonomous automobiles does not automatically mean that driving a car will disappear.  Probably not in your lifetime. Most definitely not in mine.  Less than 1% of cars on the road have any pretension of Autonomous capability.  

This smacks too much of a certain group that has become convinced that anybody who doesn’t love their item must be against it and want to take it away.  

Frankly most don’t care!  

Dusterbd13-michael said:

Javelin said:

I still think "autonomous cars" are a crack-pot pipe dream to 95% of the country by land area. What works on a sanitary street in a wi-fi and 4G/5G laden city in sunny So-Cal doesn't stand a literal snowballs chance in hell on a rural gravel state highway in Alaska where even GPS gets spotty and the weather ceiling can be measured in inches. Drive through the chuck-hole laden, bike-centric, pedestrians not-looking rainy foggy city of Portland, OR for an even more realistic standard of it not being able to work for myriad reasons. Then there's road hazards, inclement weather, heat waves, cold snaps, terrible or non-existent lane markings, alleys, bad parking lots, detours, bandwidth issues, and the potential litigation from the first pedestrian death and first rider death.

But the thing that will truly break it being instituted as a law is simply cost of ownership. If you go to the wrong side of the railroad tracks, you'll find most people have a pretty tired car that is at least 20, if not 30, years old and usually held together with some pretty ingenious hacks. This population makes up a HUGE percentage of the workforce and are typically underserved (if served at all) by public transportation and the "ride share revolution" hasn't even occurred yet in their part of the world. Even 40, 50 years from now this subset of the population will be driving "regular" cars driven by humans and powered by gasoline, simply because that's all their wages will afford.

This. Its my entire career and personal life in a nutshell. We COULD NOT afford to buy a new autonomous car. Hell, we cant afford to buy anything newer than 3 uears old. In addition, i work and live in areas that god forgot he made, let alone with cell phone coverage. Theres no public transit in the vast majority of the areas i cover. Theres no rude shares, etc. Youre lucky to get an uber, and most of our workforce couldnt afford to go to work every day on one. 

 

So, sure, they may be fine in urban areas and interstates. But in our area, they will be a long ti.e coming.

It’s not going to happen next week.  Heck 30-40 years after cars were accepted,  horses were still in major metro cities pulling carts, and being ridden.  

The only place autonomous cars even make sense is in city areas and major highways and that could be better served with more public transportation.

 

Grizz said:

The only place autonomous cars even make sense is in city areas and major highways and that could be better served with more public transportation.

 

And rural areas for elderly people who can no longer drive so they can keep their independence but still get to the doctor/grocery store, and long monotonous drives anywhere, and trucking routes to keep costs/accidents down... 

I can't think of anyone who wouldn't get the benefit out of it, the sole exceptions being in situations where they physically/electronically don't work yet--basically rural roads/"off roading". 

One thing that worries me about this though, is the idea of a subscription service. I don't want another subscription service. I want to buy MY car and have it be MINE. I don't want to sit in someone elses farts. I HATE sharing a car with anyone, I want my mess to be MY mess. 

Appleseed said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

By that logic, motorcycles shouldn't exist.

The difference is in the scale and reach of the problem. Few people choose to ride motorcycles and the extra danger is mostly confined to the same person who chose to ride the motorcycle..

In reply to mtn :

I'm talking feasibility, not where benefit lies. Or at least for the idea of "pool of auto vehicles that just go out when you call them" instead of privately owned ones. My town doesn't even have buses, and barely has taxis, because there's not enough use for them, low pop areas would get told to pound sand because there isn't enough cashflow to justify the cost in servicing them

Also a better solution to the issue of piss poor drivers is to actually teach people how to drive. Drivers ed here is 4 days of telling people what road signs mean and then a day telling people not to drive under the influence or look at their phone. And it's not even a matter of the cars getting better so we don't need to teach X anymore, it's just laziness.