Alphabet's Waymo and Intel Are Launching Public Campaigns To Build Trust In Self-Driving Cars (theverge.com) 191
Alphabet's Waymo and Intel announced plans today to sponsor ads about self-driving cars. "Alphabet's Waymo is launching a public education campaign today called "Let's Talk Self-Driving" aimed at addressing the skepticism many people have about autonomous technology," reports The Verge. Meanwhile, "Intel said it would be airing its commercial starring LeBron James in the run-up to the NBA season opener on October 17th. From the report: The ad campaign will launch first in Arizona, before spreading to other states. Waymo is preparing to launch its first commercial ride-hailing service powered by its self-driving Chrysler Pacifica minivans, according to a recent report in The Information. This public education campaign would appear to be a prelude to inviting ordinary people to take a ride in a driverless vehicle. Both companies recognize that in order to make lots of money, there will need to be a robust effort to persuade people that autonomous vehicles are as safe, if not safer, than human-operated ones. Recent polls suggest that most people wouldn't take a ride in a driverless car, even if they like the idea surrounding the technology.
How about trying to EARN trust. (Score:5, Insightful)
Having famous people promote the cars is a sign
to me that the cars are not reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did merit have anything to do with public perception?
Self driving cars are going to kill people. It's inevitable. When that happens people won't carefully consider the statistical evidence and conclude that they are still safer, they will want to know who is getting sued. Armchair engineers in Slashdot will want to know what idiot didn't consider that corner case or accidentally typed a comma instead of a decimal place.
Naturally, they are going to prepare for this and get all the PR in place to p
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the rest of the population (Score:2)
Having famous people promote the cars is a sign to me that the cars are not reliable.
The problam is that *you* is not *the general population*.
Us /.ers, given our tendencies, will tend to be over-obsessed with facts, logic, etc. compared to average joe six pack.
On the other hand, random everyday people tend to fall in for quite a lot of social cognitive bias. And if they see a celebrity endorsing something, they'll unconsciously give it more positive attention (there must be something good to it if ${celebrity} endorse it, ${celebrity} must have seen something positive in it).
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Even if it's empirically shown that self-driving cars are safer than human cars (and this is going to happen soon), people are still not going to trust AI cars, just because.
Lets get some self driving cars first, then worry about all this other stuff. People seem fine with airplane automation.
Re: (Score:2)
People seem fine with airplane automation.
They also seem fine with car automation so far. Tesla Autopilot has already killed a few people, but it is still safer per mile than the average human, so people accept the risk and continue to use it.
Will everyone trust SDCs? Of course not, there are still people that don't trust elevators and always take the stairs. But there is no good reason to believe that most people won't trust SDCs once they have a solid track record of safe driving, even if there is an occasional accident.
Re: (Score:2)
For me, it's less about trusting the equipment, and more an issue of not trusting the people who own, produce, control, and regulate said equipment. We're already moving towards a society that believes certain forms of speech are equal to physical violence, is it really a stretch of the imagination to believe that a 'self-driving car' may, someday, become an effective method of weeding out dissent, whether by intentional equipment "malfunctions," or redirecting their route to the nearest re-education camp?
I
Re: (Score:2)
is it really a stretch of the imagination to believe that a 'self-driving car' may, someday, become an effective method of weeding out dissent, whether by intentional equipment "malfunctions," or redirecting their route to the nearest re-education camp?
Yes, it is. And not just a little stretch, but an enormous one.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like how it was an "enormous stretch" that smartphones would be used to track our every movement and association, right?
People who blindly trust the government tend to be the first ones down chute.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like how it was an "enormous stretch" that smartphones would be used to track our every movement and association, right?
Not at all. It's very much a smaller stretch to think that devices will be used like that than to think that it would become anything other than exceptionally rare at worst that people will use SDCs as a means to kidnap and/or murder.
For one thing, how are they going to keep the victims in the car? Wouldn't it be a lot easier and more certain just to shoot them?
People who blindly trust the government tend to be the first ones down chute.
This has nothing to do with blindly trusting the government. It has a lot more to do with plain common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
They also seem fine with car automation so far.
I'm fine with it in concept. Right now, the hype of SDC companies is clearly far ahead of the reality of what the tech is capable of.
In 10 years? I hope that SDCs mean that I no longer have to own my own car.
Re: (Score:2)
"Anything less is snakeoil."
Not really. I wouldn't be surprised that within a decade, you'll be able to snooze or answer email, or play video games on expressways with reasonable confidence that your car will not kill you or anybody else and will let you know if it encounters a situation where it needs help. That'd be useful for those of you that have and use expressways I think.
Cars that drive surface streets in LA at rush hour? Quite a bit longer. Boston? -- maybe never.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
With traditional cars the failure rate ties straight in with operating costs. Failures in the deployed fleet are a poor reflection on the manufacturer and cause recalls. When we find the brake shoes are defective by design we haul them in and fix them all. It's all easy to see after the fact and we conduct a post-mortem to construct root cause and fix things. Very mechanical. Very science. Very professional. This part will continue to exist.
Compare this with software. When software goes wrong we all point f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If 'failure' means someone dies, then that's about two orders of magnitude worse than human drivers"
Worse than that I think. There are actually fewer than 100 traffic fatalities a day in the US. Which is still an awful lot.
I wonder if the advertising campaign isn't more to get their cars permitted to operate without a babysitter present than to persuade folks to actually get into them. On top of which, I think the initial applications will be either expressway driving (Good roads, many fewer special sit
Trust comes from strict regulation and oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought "I don't believe that crash rate", so I looked it up [wikipedia.org].
An average of 102 car fatalities per day in USA in 2016.
I'm impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Americans drive over 8.8 billion miles a day, I find it not that impressive at all.
Re: (Score:2)
^
That's split among about 250 million drivers, BTW.
So, 250,000,000 people traveling over 8,800,000,000 miles, and 102 die during the process. Doesn't seem all that onerous once you plug in all the figures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before you can regulate you need standards and those standards should actually cover the specifications of automated vehicles and their real world capabilities and how they are promoted. First up detection capabilities should be fully publicised and 3D image maps of what they can detect and how far they can detect it, what the detection cycles are and the standards it has been tested under and the validity and completeness of those test ie what the vehicle can see and how it sees it and what independent tes
Re: (Score:2)
$400 to install an 500GB hdd at dealer when the stock 250GB one is to small for the map data and you must take att with there $15 a gig Canadian data pack
Trust Google. (Score:4, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No...
Addressing skepticism (Score:2)
Form TFS:
aimed at addressing the skepticism many people have about autonomous technology
Even my skepticism resulting from the fact that Google is involved?
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust isn't the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Traffic flow is the problem. Self-driving cars will adhere slavishly to every letter of the law, even when it creates traffic havoc. Imagine a self-driving car doing exactly the speed limit in the passing lane as it inches by a self-driving transport truck doing five kph under the speed limit.
I believe Dennis Leary wrote a song that mentioned a situation much like it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's an interesting point. Plus, the actual laws about speed limits aren't always cut-and-dried.
I live in a "basic rule" state, where it's technically legal to exceed the speed limit if, taking into account road and weather conditions, it is safe to do so.*
If you're driving in a traffic stream that is going a certain speed, the legal thing to do is to match the speed of traffic even if that is above the posted limit. You can (and it does happen, although it's rare) get a ticket for driving too slowly if y
Re: (Score:2)
Yeppers, I remember traffic school many many years ago and a guy was there because he was not exceeding the speed limit and slowing down traffic. He asked the instructor and basically the instructor said it was no win. There is one law that says you should keep up with the flow of traffic and another that says don't exceed the speed limit.
Re: (Score:2)
In my state, the two laws aren't in contradiction, as the "real" law is: drive at a safe speed considering the conditions. When the weather is bad, you can get a speeding ticket without exceeding the posted limit, too.
Around here, when someone gets a ticket for driving too slowly, it seems that it's always because they're driving in a way that is causing a lot of disruption because of cars passing them. The ticket is not actually written for "driving too slow", it's for obstructing traffic or driving in rec
Re: (Score:2)
people who 55 on I-294 when it is wide open should get that.
real school zones not for profit ones that drop 45 (Score:2)
real school zones not for profit ones that drop 45 down to 20 a on a main road where the school has a traffic light and big parking lot with an side walks that are far off the road.
they don't enforce the 55 on the IL tollways! (Score:2)
they don't enforce the 55 on the IL tollways!
Re:Trust isn't the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You want my trust in self driving cars? Then have several of them drive around here in the winter.
Re: (Score:3)
That's also an interesting point.
One thing is certain: that these systems will not be as adaptable to the environment as people. (Of course, in the conditions you describe, even people are usually officially discouraged from driving).
So self-driving cars cannot used in all circumstances. I'm guessing that the car itself will often know when it's hit those circumstances. White-outs and the like are easy error conditions to detect.
The real issue will be that your car will just stop working if conditions were
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a self driving car would have no problem with snow.
Any reasonably designed system would come to a stop, or just refuse to start the journey if its vision was badly impaired. With street signs and traffic lights at least part of them will be visible, and the car will have a map and GPS to help identify junctions.
So in the worst case the car just refuses to move, and you can choose to take over manually.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a self driving car would have no problem with snow...So in the worst case the car just refuses to move, and you can choose to take over manually.
... Except the Waymo cars being discussed here don't have a manual takeover option.
So then you're stranded, because the light dusting of snow (you could have easily dealt with) just crippled your only transportation.
That seems like a massive problem to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how a light dusting of snow would cripple a car equipped with lidar and GPS. What ability does a human have which it lacks, that would be critical in this situation?
Consider that existing self-driving systems like Tesla's can cope with reflections off the road and a lack of road markings (not too uncommon in Europe), and it only has cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, then, a heavy dusting. Maybe a foot or two. The point, which you obviously missed for reasons I won't speculate on, is this - an automated car with no manual takeover method shutting down due to adverse weather conditions would be, contrary to your original assertion, a huge fucking problem for 99.99% of people who use them.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess the conclusion here is buy a self-driving car with manual mode, and learn to drive it in extreme conditions.
Having said that, if the snow is say 50cm deep is it really a good idea to drive through it? Assuming you have a suitable vehicle, you still can't see what is under there and are risking either hitting something or falling into something. On the extremely rare occasions when it happens around here they close the roads until they can be cleared for this reason.
Seems like an extreme edge case
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, if the snow is say 50cm deep is it really a good idea to drive through it?
I don't know, does keeping your job seem like a good idea? Very few employers I've encountered are very forgiving when it comes to not coming in due to foul weather. "you could always get another job" is a nice platitude, but it falls flat in reality.
Assuming you have a suitable vehicle, you still can't see what is under there and are risking either hitting something or falling into something.
And despite that, literally millions of humans navigate such conditions regularly, most of them with little difficulty and no mishaps. Almost like we've done it before...
On the extremely rare occasions when it happens around here they close the roads until they can be cleared for this reason.
Good for you. Of course, not all of us live where you do, work where you do, or live like y
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, around here no employer in their right mind would demand you come to work through 50cm of snow because even if they managed to open up themselves they would likely be liable for any accident that befell you. We have quite strong health and safety rules and expecting employees to travel in dangerous conditions is not looked favourably upon.
Re: (Score:2)
What ability does a human have which it lacks, that would be critical in this situation?
Judgement and pattern recognition.
Re: (Score:2)
Will self-driving cars still be reliable when the street is covered in snow, so it can't see the lines?
They will be better than you are. They will know the positions of street signs, and be able to use them for navigational reckoning.
Or when it snows so much that the snow sticks to traffic signs making them unreadable?
They already know what most of the signs say in the entire country. Only one car has to drive past a sign and snap a photo of it, which can then be uploaded to the centralized management system — all AVs will be using one of these, and they already have data-sharing agreements in place so that when one network gets this data, all networks do. So they're going to be better
Re: (Score:2)
They already know what most of the signs say in the entire country.
Clearly you don't live where I live. There is a *major* intersection in my city where the GPS in my car doesn't even know you can turn left there. I don't know who updates these things and what motivation is given for them up update it, but clearly it isn't working where I live.
Re: (Score:2)
Will self-driving cars still be reliable when the street is covered in snow, so it can't see the lines?
They will be better than you are.
That is unlikely to be true in my lifetime.
In addition, the only signs that are really important have unique, distinct shapes.
This is largely true, but not universally so. You certainly can't assume it.
a crosswalk is the only house-shaped pentagon.
This is not true. That shape is also used for country route markers. Other shapes that have multiple/ambiguous uses: diamond, rectangle, and trapezoid.
And the car will be able to "see" them (with radar) even in dark and snow, when you can't.
But can they read the text? For a lot of signs, it's also important to be able to read the text.
First, the car already has robotic assistance for that; it's called ABS
I don't think you can call that "robotic". Or at least, it's no more robotic than a vibrator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well thank goodness nobody ever figured out how to spoof or hack a radio transponder...
Re: (Score:2)
That might be the problem where you live, but not where I live: Minnesota. Will self-driving cars still be reliable when the street is covered in snow, so it can't see the lines? Or when it snows so much that the snow sticks to traffic signs making them unreadable? How about stopping at a traffic light when the street is covered in black ice? You want my trust in self driving cars? Then have several of them drive around here in the winter.
Dang straight. These people are getting WAY ahead of themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Several companies (Google included) have very accurate maps of all public roads.
Oh? Which companies are those? Google's maps are excellent, but they aren't anywhere near accurate enough to drive blindly with. I don't think there's a single time that I've used them without noticing a few errors (misplaced streets, closed roads Google thinks are open, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
It is just the stupid people who drive when condition are that bad.
Or people who can't afford to miss work, or people who are in urgent need of supplies, and etc.
Stupid people drive in those conditions when it's unnecessary. But it can be necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what happens when it's fine going to work, but by afternoon, there's a foot of snow on the ground? Am I stranded?
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine a self-driving car doing exactly the speed limit in the passing lane
Or look at reality. Tesla's Autopilot and other driving assisting software will exceed the speed limit if the human requests it, and they can do so safely. Why would Waymo do it differently?
Re: Trust isn't the problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would an autonomous car bother to try to pass another vehicle that was going ~3 mph slower than the limit? Why not just hang out behind it?
This is a question I ask every time I see a human driver doing it. The answer, of course, is that humans have emotions and some get very, very angry when they can't go the exact speed they prefer.
If the car is doing the driving, those people will become no less angry. That will affect the sales of such cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible that in some situations, having self driving cars doing stuff like this could actually improve overall flow. Often you get situations where, if everyone just slowed down a little, they would avoid adding to a jam ahead. On the NJ turnpike they try altering the speed limits to try to help with this, but people don't follow/trust the signs. Even 10% of cars actually doing this could potentially improve things in some cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe that car can take me to Starbucks to get a cup of coffee-flavored coffee.
Actually, my wife says that the contemporary coffee-flavored coffee is the bread-flavored bagel.
Re: (Score:2)
"Imagine a self-driving car doing exactly the speed limit in the passing lane as it inches by a self-driving transport truck doing five kph under the speed limit."
Imagine a human driven car doing exactly the speed limit in the passing lane as it inches by a human driven truck doing five kph under the speed limit.
What you describe is no different to right now.
Of course it's different. Personal data from 50 years of driving says if you're behind a slow driver in the passing lane, flashing your headlights will get him to speed up or change lanes about 25% of the time.
Hmm (Score:2)
I don't trust Intel (Score:2)
Intel has already put a backdoor into every computer using their processors and is heavily involved in anti-competitive practices. Nobody should trust anything made or said by Intel.
I'm sorry dave... (Score:4, Funny)
...I can't take you to that destination. The government told me not to.
saying we will cover you in court is a better way (Score:5, Interesting)
saying we will cover you in court is a better way.
be by saying we are liable for civil stuff and if there happens to be a criminal case we will cover your costs + bail if needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Going to be Interesting when! (Score:3)
- They are mobile billboards for your tagging prowess and skills.
- And don't forget the videos screwing with them, so one can get that 15 minutes of fame online.
Everyone does recall what Phone Booths in urban areas looked like! OOPS right
autogenocide (Score:2)
Thus with great fanfare and childish hope did mankind embark on the path to its own annihilation.
V2V Security (Score:2)
Vechicle-to-vehicle communications + all systems on one computer/bus + hacking = worms which wardrive themselves. Even if that gets locked down, we'll still have DoS attacks that cause all cars in range to slam on the brakes.
Disclaimer: I'm excited about self-driving vehicles and will go out of my way to buy one once available, despite my fears.
Alphabet - As Trustworthy as a Credit Bureau (Score:5, Funny)
Sincerely, Alphabet and Equifax.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Google has been an excellent custodian of our data, thus far.
Google maps (Score:2)
I use Google Maps, primarily to detect traffic jams and such ... which is a good thing, because much of the time it doesn't even actually start up before I'm halfway there. Then it's behind a few turns for awhile, telling me to make turns I already made.
This is when it's not thinking I'm on a completely different road (like a frontage road).
If it were driving my car? Holy #$%^.
(Yeah, I know, I'm an idiot for thinking that Google's navigation product would be anything like ... Google's navigation product
Marketing fail (Score:3)
Problem with X? Use Product Y!
Product Y: Better at X than other products!
And the always-favorite: Product X: Apply directly to the Y!
What they all have in common is getting your name out there to people who may be looking for it, and occassionally telling people about a need they didn't know they had. This could be that, or it could be an airline telling potential customers that it's 10 times less crash-and-burn-y than the competition. Self-driving cars seem like a solution to a non-existent problem for the average person. That's the barrier to cross more than anything else right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude it's Lebron James - this guy turned his back on fans and they still fawn over him. Lebron could be sitting in a self driving car on fire and programmed to run over kittens and people would still trust self driving cars if he endorses them.
Re:Less Talk, Have a Safe and Consistent Record (Score:4, Insightful)
Who's Lebron James?
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's some sportsball dude or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Goofball? Is that the kind of sportsball Lebron James plays?
Re: Less Talk, Have a Safe and Consistent Record (Score:2)
Your last point won't happen because people won't give up what they have and won't be satisfied with what they already have.
That's part why Soviet Communism doesn't work, people are dissatisfied when they can't have what they want or need. Soviet Communism may initially appeal to a truly downtrodden population because it can promise the world, but it can't deliver because there aren't enough resources. It also doesn't reward those who are truly innovative either, or those who have and use skills that des
Re: (Score:3)
Advertising is a powerful thing. You obviously underestimate it.
It's like saying "Trumps chances of being elected will go out the window as soon as he opens his mouth"
How'd that turn out?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant to post that on the numerous Trump articles already on slashdot.
For fucksakes, ever article does not have to turn into a Trump bash fest.
It's getting worse than those damn apk posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The litigation system will require they are absolutely safe to pedestrians and other drivers.
Well, it would help, but it wouldn't require absolute safety (which, to be pedantic, is an impossible standard that is demanded of literally no other product or service).
What will happen is that the companies will perform a calculation and determine an amount that they can absorb as a cost of doing business. That amount won't be zero, but won't be infinite, either.
They only need the failure rate of the car (or any other product/service that can maim or kill) to be low enough as to remain "in budget".
Re: benefits of litigation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...especially supposedly technically knowledgeable people who are supposedly future-oriented. Here we are on the threshold of a revolutionary transformation in how transportation occurs and what I'm seeing so far here is an amalgam of: who can we sue when/if something fails?!?; it'll NEVER work 100% of the time! (omitting how shitty our current methodology scores); we need Standards(TM) first!! (ignoring how technology evolves); etc. Damn, just when I thought things could not get worse for America.
Chill. There are some who are against the autonomous vehicles, but yeah, it is pretty important that the things are predictable and safe. And there are some important questions as well, as how they will handle when there are a lot of AV's on the road. And while you dismiss liability, what happens when one loses control, and plows into my house? Who covers that?
Even then, would it not make complete sense for the manufacturers to tread very carefully? Look at the shitstorm Tesla is reaping from some dud
Re: (Score:2)
what happens when one loses control, and plows into my house? Who covers that?
And how should that happen?
Bottom line the same insurance that would cover a human drier that "loses control".
Re: More proof of how dumb people are... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The owners, I would say, just like with humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The car software is not deciding that. Why should it?
Unlike for humans for an autonomous car it is super simple to avid any scenarios like this: thy never get distracted or run with inappropriated speeds.
And if it is my car and I have it insured and that makes my insurance rise (very unlikely btw.), of course I take the financial hit. Who else would?
OTOH with autonomous cars on the rise: I don't need my own car. Actually living in Europe I don't need my own car anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but I am a passenger in this scenario, not the driver. I'm not willing to be held liable for a coding or sensor error any more than I would be liable if I were in a bus or a taxi
If you are just riding in an autonomous car you are obviously not liable.
If you are the owner you are liable for everything your car is involved in.
It is enough if it is standing on the road, the breaks fail and the car is going downhill and hits something. It may not be your fault but simply material failure, but you, aka your insu
Re: (Score:2)
The owners, I would say, just like with humans.
The touchy-feely site notes that 94 percent of accidents are caused by humans. I'm looking forward to my insurance premiums going down by 94 percent. I mean, that's how it works right? When humans are no longer responsible for accidents, the premiums will plummet, and we'll all have a lot more money in pocket.
A bit of dark humor I note as well - one of the sponsors is the Foundation for Blind Children. Who on earth is going to make some poor blind kid liable for an accident in his or her self driving car
Re: (Score:2)
what happens when one loses control, and plows into my house? Who covers that? And how should that happen?
Bottom line the same insurance that would cover a human drier that "loses control".
Structural failure of a component responsible for maintaining control of the car is one. Failure of a sensor. A software bug.
While you may find it interesting to cherry pick my argument, I'll just leave this link here: https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
The driver was speeding and ignoring warnings, and attempting to use autopilot as autonomy - they are not remotely the same thing - but something tells me that there will be millions to be made in profit for the family.
The point is in this case, especia
Re: (Score:2)
Structural failure of a component responsible for maintaining control of the car is one.
Same thing as in an non autonomous car.
Failure of a sensor.
They are redundant, and a failure is usually recognized.
A software bug.
Unlikely as the cars have millions of miles of test drives.
The point is in this case, especially where the driver of the car is involved, is that with totally autonomous cars, the driver will by definition not be liable. You cannot be liable for a process that you are not involved in.
As it h
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely as the cars have millions of miles of test drives.
The point is in this case, especially where the driver of the car is involved, is that with totally autonomous cars, the driver will by definition not be liable. You cannot be liable for a process that you are not involved in. As it has no driver ... of course not :D
Do you live in America? We are so reactionary that when anything happens, we scurry about waving our hands and wailing "This must never happen again!! We must punish someone!!" And we love punishing people or companies.
There is a gambling addiction lawsuit against the makers of Ability right now. https://www.youhavealawyer.com... [youhavealawyer.com]
I don't think you understand that in America, we are in love with lawsuits, demand punisment in as many instances as possible, and seemingly love to turn a tragedy into profit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stopping could be their default "I am unsure, Stop" Rule ;)
This is why self-driving cars are safer than human drivers, and while it is the reason why they are slower if they are slower, it's also the reason why they won't get into accidents as often, and the accidents they do get into will be less severe. Not getting into serious accidents might even save everyone enough time to make up for the time they spend not unsafely passing cyclists, etc.
I really like driving, but I have emotions, and they make me less reliable than a machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually my only real problem with the cars they're showcasing right now. If there's no manual override, then you can't consider the car "reliable transportation".