[Ressuder]

It's hard to tell exactly when fully autonomous vehicles will be ready, but I definitely think it's safe to safe to say that there is not going to be any such thing as a computer-assisted human driver in any significant numbers.

If the intended users are anything else than specialists, it's very rare that anything that is not either fully automated or not noticably automated works out. In fact, even if the user is a specalist - such as a pilot - it often doesn't work out very well. People will misunderstand the system, trust it too much, trust it too little, rely too much on it.

The only solution is full automation. Noting else is going to work.

[maxerickson]

All new vehicles in the US have computer assisted traction control. For several years now. So a huge portion of drivers are already being assisted by a computer.

It was mandated because it improves safety. Automatic braking is scheduled to be a standard feature in the next 5-6 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_avoidance_system

I'm happy to concede that these are sort of uninteresting in the context of autonomous vehicles, but they are very much computer systems that assist drivers.

[Ressuder]

Right, which is why I said "not noticably automated" rather than "not automated".

[maxerickson]

You also said It's hard to tell exactly when fully autonomous vehicles will be ready, but I definitely think it's safe to safe to say that there is not going to be any such thing as a computer-assisted human driver in any significant numbers.

I just didn't realize that I definitely think it's safe to safe to say that there is not going to be any such thing as a computer-assisted human driver in any significant numbers. was not intended to be a categorical statement...

[Ressuder]

I did not write what I wrote in a vacuum, it was a response to a post that should make it more than obvious enough what I was talking about. I'm going to quote if here for you:

>"Confession time...

I really want to see fully autonomous vehicles but I don't really believe we'll see them on the road in the next 50 years. I think Google's concerns with being able to reliably pass control between the driver and the computer is warranted. I think that the technology will get stuck in the equivalent of the CGI uncanny valley where they find that the technology has to leave more control with the driver than its capable of to keep the driver engaged but never is capable of full control. My guess is that these systems will evolve into assisted driving technologies that will use force feedback to the driver that will suggest the sanest path but won't take full control until the driver is outside the envelope and will predominantly be used to extend the window where baby boomers can drive and also save inattentive and unsafe drivers for themselves. In other words a drunk behind the wheel is still going to look like a drunk behind the wheel but just less likely to kill someone.

I expect the technology will be displace drivers in military convoys but I don't think it will be good enough for general use. Even if the technology is close I don't think the safety will be as good as the "augmented human" model which will also rapidly improve and so insurance and regulation will continue to hamper rollout.

Would love from those in the know to tell me I'm wrong. I want to believe!"

[drzaiusapelord]

Well, how about automatic transmissions? ABS? Traction control? Cars have had those things for decades and they're not a big deal.

A lot of newer cars have lane assist and other features. I think a half-way there approach works fine. The same way pilots have the option to use auto-land and auto-pilot.

[Ressuder]

I'm sure that if you read what I wrote again I wrote "not noticably automated" rather than "not automated", specifically for that reason. People don't know that it's there, it's just the way the car naturally handles for them.

Transmission is completely automated. You never have to handle anything that has to do with it.

ABS and TVS changes how the car functions all the time. You have no control over it whatsoever, and it never hands over control to you.

In other words, none of those contradicts anything I said, and I have no doubt that potentially more things like that will come. However, they will still fall under the same two categories: full automation or non-noticable automation.

[galdosdi]

You make a very good point that we've been making driving easier for a long time now.

But those things don't uniformly work fine, unless you ignore human factors. The big danger here is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation especially with regards to encouraging drivers to feel safe about not paying attention temporarily.

Things like ABS and traction control seem to work great in this light, providing a benefit at little cost -- because (unless they're goofing around on a track or parking lot or something) the driver rarely notices it outside of a rare emergency and thus cannot adjust their behavior to compensate.

Automatic transmissions, lane maintenance, cruise control, "tesla auto pilot mode" etc on the other hand clearly make the car feel easier to drive and harder to crash every moment they're being operated, and make the driving task less demanding of attention, providing plenty of opportunity for the driver to get used to the safety feature and start using it as a crutch that allows the driver to pay less attention. And inattention is the main cause of wrecks.

Even road features themselves often have this effect -- making things seem safer makes drivers actually driver more poorly, and vice versa. See for example http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-2012/slower-road...

Maybe these features save more lives than they doom, but it's certainly not a given, so as they are introduced they really need to be rigorously analyzed to ensure they have the hoped-for effect.