Our gradual loss of control as the driver continues...

[Harry P.]

As cars become "smarter" and more involved in the driver's reactions and inputs, like crash avoidance systems and other electronic nannies that either work with the driver's inputs or actually override them, or systems that can parallel park while the driver just sits there, the role of the driver is constantly being diminished... to the point where one day cars will not even need a driver at all.

Good or bad?

You can't stop the march of progress–the traditional roles of car and driver are changing rapidly, with the car relying less on driver input and taking over more and more of the actual driving process. Ford is now bringing "smart" steering to the masses...

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/05/30/ford-introducing-adaptive-steering/?intcmp=features

[Dr. Cranky]

I wonder how all of this will play in the courts when say one of these (or multiple) crash or malfunction AND crash.

[Harry P.]

I wonder how all of this will play in the courts when say one of these (or multiple) crash or malfunction AND crash.

Good question! Who is at fault when two driverless cars crash? It could get very messy, legally. Lots of "unforeseen consequences" ahead if the day comes where cars are actually driverless.

Will driverless cars be mandated by law one day? If so, what about the millions and millions of "regular" cars on the road? Would we get a certain amount of time to all buy a new driverless car before "old fashioned" cars would no longer be legal to drive? Would driverless cars be phased in over time? How would a crash involving a driver and a driverless car work as far as insurance? What if a driverless car was full of passengers, none of which are the owner, and that car is involved in a crash? Who's responsible for any damage/injury/death caused?

[Modelmartin]

That just sounds like variable effort power steering which, to me, is no big deal. I think some of the other systems you mention diminish many people's sense of responsibility behind the wheel.

Paying attention to the task at hand - DRIVING- is more important than any safety device.

[Modelmartin]

Good question! Who is at fault when two driverless cars crash? It could get very messy, legally. Lots of "unforeseen consequences" ahead if the day comes where cars are actually driverless.

Will driverless cars be mandated by law one day? If so, what about the millions and millions of "regular" cars on the road? Would we get a certain amount of time to all buy a new driverless car before "old fashioned" cars would no longer be legal to drive? Would driverless cars be phased in over time? How would a crash involving a driver and a driverless car work as far as insurance? What if a driverless car was full of passengers, none of which are the owner, and that car is involved in a crash? Who's responsible for any damage/injury/death caused?

Will never happen. it is like the paper-less office. it is a pipe dream of the futurists. The human factor won't give up control.

[Harry P.]

That just sounds like variable effort power steering which, to me, is no big deal.

Right, in and of itself no big deal.

But just another small incremental step that takes a bit of control away from the driver. Part of the ongoing process of gradually taking more and more driver control away in the name of safety.

I'm not sure that's necessarily a good or bad trend. Probably good if it results in fewer traffic accidents and/or injury and death. But it just seems sort of creepy and "big brotherish" to me.

[Danno]

And not only that, but how will it interface with garage door openers?

[Brett Barrow]

Instead of cars as horseless carriages, they're becoming more like the carriage and the horse. Very, very smart horses...

[Dr. Cranky]

I personally will neither ride in a car without a driver or a plane without a pilot. Airlines would love to fly 500 heads of cattle (what I call passengers) without having to pay a pilot. I think all of this comes from the fact that the railroads shed the caboose many years ago and others think they can use the same technology to save money in other modes of transportation. In any case, I think this is into a future I will not be a part of, I think.

[tubbs]

I personally will neither ride in a car without a driver or a plane without a pilot. Airlines would love to fly 500 heads of cattle (what I call passengers) without having to pay a pilot. I think all of this comes from the fact that the railroads shed the caboose many years ago and others think they can use the same technology to save money in other modes of transportation. In any case, I think this is into a future I will not be a part of, I think.

I agree. and I wouldn't want to flip the bill when my driverless car computer goes on the fritz!! let's just go back to trolleys and street cars.

[Dr. Cranky]

Actually, I think lots of cities (like Los Angeles) will have no choice but to return to trolleys and mass trans. Either that or it will just turn into Blade Runner. LOL.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Another skill being lost. Technology is a two edged sword. The more we depend on it the less we do. For example how many people know how to read a map.

[sjordan2]

I remember seeing news features about this back in the 1950s. The original idea was that there would be an automated inside "fast lane/carpool lane" that cars hooked up to and exited from at a given stop, sort of like a personal bus route. Mercedes has had a working driverless car in development for a couple of years and, of course, there's the new Google car.

Edited May 30, 2014 by sjordan2

[Draggon]

The only time I see driverless cars as being a real benefit is for drunk drivers. Would be nice if a normal car could go on autopilot when it detected the driver had imbibed too much.

[Scalper]

Year is 2024 A driver was charged for over writing his car cpu to drive the car manually . Police saw the man using the control stick to drive around. He has been charged with reckless driving. .Also been charged with danger to the public.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Scalper

[Wagoneer81]

There are many reasons why I drive a vehicle made in 1981... Yes, it's a 4WD, but there's no computer, no airbags, no traction control, no antilock anything, no collision avoidance system... I like being in control of my vehicle, at all times. It's simple; when it's wet or icy, I slow down. Sometimes, I slow waaaay down. I pay attention to the road conditions and actually DRIVE the vehicle by listening to it and my surroundings. I feel what the vehicle is doing, how it's responding to my commands... I don't roll up my windows in my sound-proofed passenger compartment and let the vehicle make the important decisions for me. Yes, in nasty weather, I get passed by 'modern vehicles' with all the newer equipment but I also, sometimes, get to pass them on the road because they've lost control and ended up in the ditch.... Newsflash, simple physics still rules. You still need to be able to stop the vehicle...

Here's an observation: Last winter, here in Indiana, was pretty nasty. The majority of vehicles that I saw off the road, in the ditch, on their tops, etc., were newer (2005 and up) AWD, antilock, traction control equipped SUV's... or 'Safer' FWD cars. Why is that? According to the advertisers, my old Jeeposaurus, without all these "modern safety features", should flip over and explode simply by turning the key. Maybe, just maybe, people get a false sense of security knowing that if the driver screws up, the vehicle will step up and save their bacon???

This is something I've asked before and have NEVER gotten a straight answer: These collision avoidance systems that automatically apply the brakes, when it senses someone or something close to the front or back of the vehicle... If someone wanted to do something harmful and illegal to the vehicle occupant, could someone stand close to the bumper of the vehicle, trip the sensor and keep it from moving, keep you from driving away, while their accomplice gains access to the vehicle through a door or window? I would like a knowledgable answer to this one.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Wagoneer81

[slusher]

I don't ever believe anything will replace the human brain and eye. ...

[mikevillena]

You cannot engineer out "stupid". So what's next, rubber armco, retaining walls, abutments, pedestrians, airbags on the outside of cars so that they inflate like puffer fish at the first hint of trouble? It is so ridiculously easy to get a driver's license in this country. All you need is a pulse and short of ramming another car during the road test the DMV will happily take your money and grant you the privilege of driving. I can hear the Europeans laughing at us while the carnage continues. ......

[1930fordpickup]

The biggest thing that would stop it ---- How do you tell the wife you forgot to stop when the car is programmed by her! LOL

[ScaleDale]

Let's see... Internet enabled cars controlled by computers and software. No problem there, right?

What was that Bruce Willis/Justin Long movie about a "fire sale"?

Dale

[mcandela]

First of all, my past is already longer than my future, so I will never get to see this happen, and second, I am a car guy, I will never ride in a car that drives itself! HELL NO!!

[my80malibu]

I wonder how all of this will play in the courts when say one of these (or multiple) crash or malfunction AND crash.

Simple Ahnold will come on the Navigation screen, and tell you that you have been Scheduled for Termination. Then the shotgun mounted in the steering column will take over.

[bobthehobbyguy]

2039 the 1000 car pileup was found to be caused by a 15 year old hacker who thought it would funny to change autonav sottware safety ptotocals. In other news Microsoft is releasing more updates and security patches to their autonav software.

[ranma]

I agree with you Harry, Just think what's to stop the computer system that drives that car from getting Hacked. Just another way the someone can kill people not to mention progaming the darn thing to deliver thing's that go BOOM. No thank you I'd rather drive than let a car do so. It's just a bad idea more so these days with groups like al kidia

[Ace-Garageguy]

There are many reasons why I drive a vehicle made in 1981... Yes, it's a 4WD, but there's no computer, no airbags, no traction control, no antilock anything, no collision avoidance system... I like being in control of my vehicle, at all times. It's simple; when it's wet or icy, I slow down. Sometimes, I slow waaaay down. I pay attention to the road conditions and actually DRIVE the vehicle by listening to it and my surroundings. I feel what the vehicle is doing, how it's responding to my commands... I don't roll up my windows in my sound-proofed passenger compartment and let the vehicle make the important decisions for me. Yes, in nasty weather, I get passed by 'modern vehicles' with all the newer equipment but I also, sometimes, get to pass them on the road because they've lost control and ended up in the ditch.... Newsflash, simple physics still rules. You still need to be able to stop the vehicle...

Here's an observation: Last winter, here in Indiana, was pretty nasty. The majority of vehicles that I saw off the road, in the ditch, on their tops, etc., were newer (2005 and up) AWD, antilock, traction control equipped SUV's... or 'Safer' FWD cars. Why is that? According to the advertisers, my old Jeeposaurus, without all these "modern safety features", should flip over and explode simply by turning the key. Maybe, just maybe, people get a false sense of security knowing that if the driver screws up, the vehicle will step up and save their bacon???

Yeah brother, exactly. In the recent Snowgeddon in Atlanta, as you said, all the vehicles in the ditches, on their roofs, and stuck abandoned by the side of the roads were newer, "safe" vehicles that had all sorts of spiffy traction control devices...but no actual traction on ice because they had neither studs nor chains. Still, their oblivious-to-physics drivers were passing me like i was stopped...until I'd pass them a little farther down the road, where they'd spun around and were often facing backwards, or with their stunned and surprised "drivers" hanging helplessly from the seatbelts with the wheels spinning uselessly in the air. Not a lot of traction to control when you're upside-down.

You cannot engineer out "stupid".

Yup.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy