Thanks, C VanDome. You are quite right that the discussions on guns in America appear to have -- perhaps -- reached the point that nobody wants to talk about it any more.
We seem to have lost the way to reach out to one another.
That said, I am still sticking to the point that any regulations on (autonomous) car ownerships will have some negative repercussions among those who want to have nothing to do with the government. The automotive industry is underestimating the driver's emotional attachment to "freedom" and "ownership."
Okay Junko, I'll bite: I think that the reason that guns-cars angle isn't a hotter debate here is that the comparison has been played out. In fact the whole discussion of guns in America is pretty well worn: John Lott 1, gun grabbers 0. That's why I didn't respond directly to @jackofmany above because trying to convince a subject of another person (the Queen in this case) why owning arms is important to a free citizenry is an exercise in futility. Just as convincing Bert that gun ownership isn't a hobby so much as it is a civic responsibility is in the same vein.
And that pains me becuase I don't often dissagree with Wise One of this forum. :)
I think many drivers would agree with you, perhaps not on the exact percentage, but on the general concept that we don't always want to have to drive, we often just want to get from A to B and would prefer being able to do other things while in transit. But there is a huge difference between being able to choose whether to drive or to just let the computer do it, versus having a car that cannot be manually driven, or having government mandates prohibiting manual driving.
I agree with Bert that the survey was flawed in asking whether drivers would be willing to pay for certain ADAS features -- of course they aren't, just as they/we weren't willing to voluntarily pay for airbags, emissions controls, etc. But when certain ADAS features become standard, and possibly mandated, drivers will welcome the benefits they bring -- right up to the point where you take away their ability to go manual and to be in control of the vehicle. That last step to fully autonomous cars with no possibility of human control is going to be met with a great deal of resistance.
As a former motorbiker and now bike rider i know that eye contact with other road users is so much vital; i have to make sure i'm seen by others before taking some decisions. How can i make eye contact with a robot? and worse, with a driver in an autonomous car ...
Secondly, i suppose that autonomous cars play by the rules; but everybody knows that more than often, road users do some mutual agreements not necessary within those rules for whatever reason.
As i've said before, cars are THE problem and autonomous cars won't be any solution.
the most deadly ever airplane accident has been avoided at the Barcelona airport; the Russian pilots had the right attitude and did their best making an impressive and close go around. My question is : what would an automatic pilot do in exactly the same situation ?
Am I the only one seeing a parallel between guns and cars, worried about the future in which someone like Heston holding up a steering wheel, defying Gov to rip it "from my cold, dead hands"?
I don't think it's the same, Junko. I'll show my own bias here to make the point.
Supporters of lax gun laws traditionally jut their jaw and quote the Constitution, claiming their hobby is protected by a higher power (or maybe even Higher Power). But many, or probably most, of this mindset will similarly jut jaw to point out that driving a car is just "a privilege."
I'm perfectly willing to go on at length to explain why driving a car is no more "a privilege" than was riding a horse a couple of centuries ago, but that's tangential. Ditto for the Higher Power excuse for gun ownership. Attempting to rationalize one's car driving preference and one's gun owning hobby, with anything more than "I just like it," involves different mindset and/or political tactics.
I believe there are many out there who are also thinking along the same line. I don't blame you for that. In fact, this is precisely one of the issues missing from today's debate about autonomous cars.
The answer to the question of how much safety has to be built in is pretty much like the old joke about the two guys in bear country and one puts on his running shoes because he doesn't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than his buddy. The autonomous vehicle doesn't have to be 100% infallible, just safer than the humans.
They aren't explicitly marketed for "old people". They market them as Cadillacs, 7-series Beemers, Mercedes S-class, etc. And then call them Luxury cars because of the price point. Make no mistake there are definitely cars marketed to specific demographics, just not so explicitly as to be exclusionary. Case in point, the new Ford Escape is definitely targeting women.
We all expect technology to be reliable to an acceptable level and fail safely. We expect the same from our processes, procedures and behaviors. I agree that it would be ignorant to claim nothing can be learned from aviation; can't see where anyone said that, but maybe it's my eyes playing tricks on me :). I merely stated that it's a bad example in this case. And, yes, I'm a pilot and transponders and FLARMS seem a lot more reliable than see-and-avoid, which should be amply demonstrated everytime the FLARM surprises one.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.