For sure, and not only "innocents" which jaywalk but hackers and malicious parties who could exploit these "autonomous" systems much more easily than a human driver. While today it's necessary to hack into the car's systems itself (which has been proven to be possible numerous times), these cars will be much easier to manipulate as they rely a lot on external data, and as we know user generated input is one of the easiest vectors of attack.
Agreed for the most part. A lot of people lack integrity. However, a few of us actually behave according to an internal ruleset, and will do so even if we aren't being observed.
Not the case. Often what is attributed to human nature is actually human cultural and societal norms. For example in the UK, most people will stop at a red light, even if it's the middle of nowhere, there are no other cars on the road and zero chance of getting caught. Humans are highly conditioned in a myriad of ways which makes the idea of 'human nature' somewhat of a myth.
@@sufsanin1917 bro, I'm from Bangladesh as well, Dhaka traffic is slowest in the world but the traffic of Mumbai is something else. Nothing can be compared with it. The only word that can justify, "CRAZY"
"The only reason we don't ride our bikes everywhere is the fear that we'll get hit." I can honestly say that this reason _never entered my mind_ because well before this, I rejected the idea because _I am fat and lazy._ -Edit. And privileged. I'm also privileged. Thank you Deathstroke.
You can program the cars to honk and keep on honking loudly when they realise that its unusual/inappropiate crossing. And automatcally call the police. There are still rules.
This was my first thought... they have to "injure" the misbehaving pedestrian, if only injury to the pleasure of their inappropriate walk... focused sonics that make them feel uneasy... we'll slowly train them to be better peds. Pavlov would be proud. ;)
Driverless cars should handle misbehaving pedestrians the same way you handle misbehaving cats. Equip the driverless cars with squirt guns. Problem solved.
I'm so ahead of the game. I asked my driving instructor back in the late 80s what would happen if a car arrived at each point of a crossroads simultaneously, who would have right of way. Wouldn't they just all sit there forever? (I was kinda green back then) He said not to worry because nobody on the road is that polite Well, psych! I win.
Here in canada its a law that the person on the right of you would have right of way, and usually that never happens, but if it does, theres always one aggressive one out of the bunch.
@@harsimranbansal5355 That's what i was taught... if the car to the right arrived at the same time as you, let them go. (Although cars arriving simultaneously at all points of an intersection causes a problem.)
I remember hearing about a question on a driving test, I think in Germany, that asks who what order 4 vehicles that arrive at an intersection would go. The vehicles were yours, a police car, a postal vehicle, and an ambulance.
The thing is, a lot of self-driving cars will have a passenger on board. And even if the car won't hit you, that passenger is likely to get out and punch you. So I think this is a social issue that passengers will solve. lol
I can’t wait to see impatient drivers in self driving cars lose their minds when all cars on the road are treated equally and they can’t drive aggressively
When Neil asked “how do you convince people that 2000 deaths is better than 35,000 deaths?” I thought to myself that is simultaneously the dumbest and smartest question I’ve ever heard.
When you've been following EVs for a while its even more understandable. Every time a Tesla has an AI crash it is BIG news, yet the facts show Teslas operating on AI have nearly a ten fold lower chance of an accident than a human alone.
@@robertbushnell781, but you cannot know which group you will be a part of, or even if you will be a part of either group. So the optimal choice is to choose the smaller number of deaths so that you and your loved ones have the lowest chance of being hurt.
"The only thing preventing us from riding our bicycle everywhere is fear"? Or maybe not all of us live in a big city and riding a bicycle would make our commute 4 hours each way...
yeah, people get into their own bubble and assume the rest of the world shares their same problem-set lol. I love riding my bike, but it takes me 20 minutes in a car (mostly highway) to get to work.. this would be insane 2x a day on a bike, when would I sleep? I do agree if I lived downtown in some larger city, a car would be almost worthless. More liability to find parking and get vandalized than convenient. It's all perspective.
@@akunog3665 On the large scale, a major factor is the fear/lack of safe infrastructure. People at their intelligence never truly mean everyone, they mean a large enough portion to be a strong majority..
The way to solve that issue? Make cities dense enough to be bike-able (which doesn’t mean skyscrapers, it only needs 3-6 story mixed use buildings). Nearly everywhere outside farms in the Netherlands have bike infrastructure that the majority of people there use, and it works perfectly fine, because of how their infrastructure is built! No need for self-driving cars, either!
Probably the best science influencer with an excellent dynamic with its videos. Guest speakers providing their knowledge, Neil simplifying and/or adding incredible information to us, and lastly our lovely Chuck, understanding and going with the flow of the conversation while still cracking jokes to put a smile on your face (tbh I sometimes need to rewind or look up stuff to understand certain things further ~mad respect~).
A point of contention. Even with self driving cars (which I'm very much in favor of), I'd still never ride my bike. For two primary reasons. One, even though I live in a major metropolitan city (Detroit), places are still too far apart, especially for the average of 150 miles per day that I drive. And two, we have very harsh winters, which is prohibitive of bicycle riding. While your guest made many great points, he does have a narrow mindset of an individual whose life is wrapped up in a relatively small space (NYC). The rest of the country isn't NYC; it's very different.
I worked active safely in the car industry 15 years ago and we used to talk a lot about how pedestrians will “abuse” the system. It’s an interesting problem, but it is not something nobody thought about before.
Definitely some food for thought, You're riding over a two lane bridge at 55mph, there's a pedestrian walking on the right shoulder, and an oncoming truck in the other lane. The pedestrian suddenly leaps in front of your car, and with insufficient space to stop before striking the suicidal/inconceivably unlucky pedestrian what does your car decide to do? Does it A: Strike the pedestrian, B: Swerve into the oncoming truck, or C: Swerve off the bridge?
Given my experiences with my Tesla, I would say that autonomous cars handle snowy conditions very poorly. A light snowfall (or fog, or heavy rain) is enough to get the Tesla autopilot to disengage. I’m sure that is one of the reasons Waymo tested first in Phoenix not Buffalo.
@@jpe1 heavy rain? I've only had autopilot refuse to engage once in heavy rain and it was so bad most people were just stopped at the side of the road. I've actually been really impressed with how well it handles rain. Haven't been able to try it with snow yet, but I imagine if the lines were covered it wouldn't work. Of course, it may be a slight difference in autopilot versions/hardware. I got my model 3 in early 2021.
I would bet you a million dollars that even if driverless cars don't handle snowy conditions particularly well, they would still be far better than most human drivers. The last time I was driving in terrible snowy conditions, everyone was driving extremely well. But that was only because all the bad drivers had already slid off the road and into a ditch.
I don't understand why he just didn't say something akin to: "As software developers, we need to keep in mind every person in every given situation, but if those conditions aren't met then there's a real problem that needs to be solved before we move on."
Maybe. But I expect a self-driving car, and all the other self-driving cars around it, will figure out how to safely swerve around the jaywalker. A new sport may arise... how to mess with self-driving cars "most effectively". How many cars can you make stop with a single action? How close to getting hit? Can you illicit profanities from one or more self-driving cars?
@@CarFreeSegnitz Yes, but then, thanks to that new sport, a human driven car will rear end the self driving car. Maybe the car can figure out to apply the brakes in a few micro seconds, but it still takes the human a second to realize that.
@@lowmax4431 an A.I simply wont let a person get close enough while it is moving fast enough, drving A.I's tend to do this thing where they not only read the current information, but also predict a bunch of future possibilities and plans accordingly, the A.I will already have planned for the possibility of you doing this, and will have planned a way to avoid it.
Love this channel! Very few people have the capability to combine scientific knowledge and comedy. With Neil, Chuck and their guess, I always learn something new, or a different perspective on something that I already knew, and laugh while doing so! Thanks Dr. Tyson!
The issue I see with self-driving cars is, that they might work perfectly when conditions are fine, but they rarely are. There are so many weird construction sites, detours, closed lanes and unmarket backroads here in Germany that even human drivers are constantly confused. I don't think an AI stands a chance...
I wouldn't worry about that. They've already started testing/training for weird conditions like Halloween in the US, where a bunch of kids are out on the street at dusk or after dark wearing all kinds of costumes. So it's not like they aren't considering abnormal conditions. Secondly, humans are sometimes going to be confused by situations that wouldn't confuse a computer. Just because humans have some difficulty driving in certain circumstances doesn't necessarily mean self-driving cars will also have difficulties in that situation.
I've seen this problem with AGV's. I helped implement it in a hospital and it gets even worse. Everyone will be testing the AGV's responsiveness. Like jumping in front of them. I think the problem is that many do not differentiate. Selfdriving cars in a predictable environment are great! The problem occurs when things happen they weren't prepared for. I'd argue, that having them in cities would be fine. On highways in remote areas may still cause issues.
@@XFizzlepop-Berrytwist what issues do we currently have with driving on highways, that would be immediately fixed with selfdriving cars? Deer jumping out with no time to move out of the way? A car at highway speed requires some 500 feet to stop, and deer can jump put 200, or even 100 feet in front of you
There may be no stat, but in traffic school 20 years ago, my instructor said "most" accidents happen because people are in a hurry, so plan to get anywhere you're going 15 minutes early. No wrecks or tickets since then.
There was a road safety campaign aboit 15-20 years ago here in Australia…showing a young lady crossing a street, an oncoming car is doing 5km/h over the posted speed limit, can’t slow down in time, and the woman is knocked down her head cracking the windshield etc…then the narrator rewinds and says “let’s just change one thing (down to actual speed limit)…the woman is still knocked down, but MUCH gentler and the campaign slogan comes up “5kmh slower, she’d only have a bruised leg” The campaign got pulled though because of some of the rules regarding depiction of collisions and accidents and rules regarding what can be shown, and why some things can’t be… Someone rightly pointed out “yes, a very important message…but let’s change one OTHER important aspect and change the slogan to go with it “5Koh slower she’d only have a bruised leg…but if she’d bothered to LOOK BEFORE CROSSING, she’d never get hit in the first place”
I would like to see how a driverless car handles: - Aquaplaning - Loss of traction due to water on the road or oil on the road (from a previous accident) - A tyre blowout while driving, etc... A human can compensate for these things and I've no doubt that you could program a driverless car to be able to deal with such scenarios, but I really want to know if driverless cars are CURRENTLY able to deal with such scenarios.
I find this video fascinating in how car-centric the perspective is. Pedestrians are viewed as obstacles that need to be scared off the street. This is very much a North American perspective. Many European cities already design urban streets to be pedestrian-centric and somewhat unfriendly towards cars, but they also invest much more heavily in good public transit and bike paths and good zoning laws too, so people don't *need* to drive as much. That said, one reason I can see for manual override is if some enterprising criminals take advantage of the safety features to stop your car and mug you. I don't foresee this as being a major problem that would in any way diminish the weight of statistics in terms of lives saved by self-driving cars, but nonetheless it is a problem worth considering.
@@ZootSuitJZ Whether public transportation is successful really depends on how much public transportation infrastructure is prioritized in civil planning, *not* on how "big" a country is. Most of us live in urban areas. 83% of us, to be precise. In fact, the degree of urbanization in North America is actually higher, on average, than Europe (82% vs. 75%). The problem is that in the United States, we greatly deprioritize public transportation infrastructure because we have a strong institutional and cultural focus on individual cars. Compounding that problem, we design our cities (through zoning laws) to separate residential and commercial land to the point that it's almost impossible to get _anything_ done without a vehicle. It's not just culture. It's a decades long crafting of public policy (starting with the Post-WW2 period) through zoning laws and federal funding to make it almost impossible to build anything else. If anything, the culture is _caused_ by the policy, rather than the other way around. Now, there are _several_ generations of Americans who have grown up in car-centric suburbs and have never known it was even possible to have a suburb that is _not_ car-centric. We don't need a public transportation infrastructure for bringing people from Los Angeles to San Francisco or New York. We don't need to connect one metropolitan area to another. What we need public transportation infrastructure for is to interconnect the suburbs to the city center. And there are very few urban areas in the United States that make much of an effort in this area. Furthermore, we need to design our cities such that you don't need a car to accomplish even the tiniest of tasks. Where the closest grocery store is a small outlet down your street rather than the department store 2+ miles away. Transit infrastructure should be designed to get cars off the road, because that's how you move the most people per hour. A bus moves _way_ more people per hour than if all of those people were in cars. A train moves more than a bus. Etc. Every single person who decides to take public transit instead of driving is one less car on the road and therefore makes it faster for everyone to get where they're going.
@@discipleoferis549...or, you know, it's just too big. Not even counting personal transportation, just work alone, I can travel 400 miles in a single day (making only 2-6 stops)(I'm a sales manager for a window manufacturer) . No public transportation system will ever meet those needs. Then, for personal transportation (shopping, visiting friends and family, etc) can sometimes exceed 200 miles in a day. No one has the hours in a day to spend waiting on public transportation for all of those stops. So, again, small scale European public transportation would never work here. Places we go are too spread out. I live in Detroit, an absolutely HUGE city by itself, not even counting the surrounding suburbs. Just inside of Detroit proper, you can fit the entire cities of Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco, and still have space leftover. Small scale European public transportation cannot and will not EVER work here.
@@ZootSuitJZ It sounds like you're describing why you need a car for your job. Maybe you do need a car, and it's best for you. I don't know if you noticed, but people still drive in Europe all the time. Again, the size of America isn't what causes public transportation to be difficult. It's intentional car-centric civil planning that makes it hard to create good public transportation. You are absolutely correct that public transit wouldn't with well for your specific scenario. Doesn't affect what I said one bit.
@@discipleoferis549 European public transportation won't work for the majority. I'm not alone in this. Other than a few retirees I know, everyone else can't benefit from what Europe does, because, well, we're not Europe. Our country is too large, our lives are too spread out, and our schedules can't work with the slowness of public transportation. My office is ten miles from my primary residence, and 18 miles from my other home. Just my morning commute alone takes me through 5 different cities. (I live near the borders of all of them) As well as a few of my colleagues. Plus, people don't always live where they work. Many live in one city, and work in another. Not to mention, the public transportation that we do have, shuts down during the frequent snow storms we experience, but our jobs don't shut down. America is not Europe. We have different needs than Europe. Their solutions are for them, not us.
The biggest problem that this is not considering, is that the companies are not considering some of the psychology of driving. There's people out there who actually enjoy driving and wouldn't change to autonomous driving, in the same way there's a lot of people who prefer to drive mechanic over automatic, human preference will make it so that a lot of people will rather prefer to drive than have an autonomous car.
@@francesbadger3401 Agreed. I'm sure they are all managed by computers now, but the programming would be less than 1% as complicated as the programming for driverless cars.
As a driver of an emergency vehicle, I'd like to know if these cars get out of the way, as I've seen plenty of humans that totally ignore sirens and flashing lights
Saw a video on Veritaserum that mentioned that the google cars pick up sounds particularly siren sounds so that they can pull over immediately to let emergency vehicle pass
@@Luumus I think the Teslas hear sirens also. The future will be without sirens as the vehicles will communicate with each other and traffic would part like the red sea to let a silent emergency vehicle pass.
And what happened in American Football when they started wearing hard helmets? They started using their helmets as a weapon, and concussions are a real issue now.
Almost got run off the road by a pickup for sport while I was biking last week. Road rage is pretty frequent. Also a carless driver almost nailed me head on at 45mph from the opposing lane. Came within a foot of dying there. I welcome self driving cars.
I have a 2017 automobile with active speed control. It will pace the vehicle ahead up to it's set speed . . . . . . . . . . Unless the vehicle ahead is a motorcycle. It may not "see" a motorcycle. I did not hit the motorcycle (which was doing 10-15 mph less then me, only because I realized I was closing on the motorcycle in time to avoid the problem. Take care and keep your mind on the road.
I worked on an autonomous car and developed some interfaces to program in an aspect of respect for the robot cars so the pedestrians will hold the same respect for them as they do for cars driven by people. It was a multi-tiered approach and included blended traffic. I felt like it needed further testing and development, but the premise is still a major problem.
The bias of the kind mentioned is not possible in autonomous vehicles because there are usually installed with lidar, so they should be programmed to stop whatever comes infront of it. And even if it doesn't have lidar there will be infrared or other night time vision cameras and having all possible variation of dataset will solve the problem completely if it exists.
If there are no one driving, we also wouldn't need stop lights or nearly any signs in the road (except for pedestrians) and the cars would move much faster than today. While they would do the best that they can to stop, there are no guarantees they will and it's pretty hard to stop a car going 100km/h (~60mi/h) or even more. It would be pretty scary crossing a road of vehicles moving that fast unless it was a quiet road and the car was far away (which people would totally jaywalk now anyway). So, I don't think that'll ultimately be a problem, although it may be a bit annoying during a transition period when most cars are self driving but not all.
Anyone who thinks that autonomous vehicles mean it's ok to mess with it and the people riding in them with this kind of childishness needs to be locked up for serious time for their own well being.
@@Alex-02 Sadly, there are videos of many people trying to "outsmart" the autopilot. So I don't hold out hope that this would be beyond the pale for them....
I remember a truck driver award given to a guy who drove 40 years without an accident. They asked him what his secret was and he said, "Never drive when you are angry or in a hurry". All self-driving cars will have his mindset.
Just an observation, how cars have taken precedence over other transit, including pedestrians. Socially, few will even question which has the higher priority, and which should defer to which.
You would hope they add sensors that could help the car see in the dark. And they build in priority that if a sensor detects a persons - when in doubt with the other sensors, it will reduce speed/stop. The other thing is - lets say we get near reducing nearly all traffic deaths to 0. At some point there is going to be a law or security standard - some country on the globe is going to enforce this - that new cars after year 20XX will need to pass a certain safety test. We do crash testing now on cars - there will be an AI test and sensor test in the future. Its cheaper for the manifacturer to build only a few models of the cars - and having high safety features will be a selling point. After there is a first country, the majority of cars being sold will be much safer. Its going to be late, as all new laws on tech always are - but it will be there.
Thermal/infrared cameras as a secondary navigation tracking. Thay way, even if there is a lot of heat registering in the street, the car can avoid it. Forward looking infared is an early 80s technology.
My first thought about when cars are self driving was that this will make theft sooooo easy. Step in front of a self driving semi, it will stop. Step in front of an armored car, it will stop.
Malcom is black?! huh? 100% Honestly never occurred to me to think of him as black. Honestly. I actually had to scroll back up to the video to be sure who you were referring to as being like Christopher Walken. I s'pose the 'fro might've clued me in but I never thought of that as strictly a black thing.
Cars don't use a standard camera to detect a person or in other words they're not basically operating like a dash cam video format that stops when movement occurs. They operate on a radar style system, so no, it shouldn't matter how dark your skin or clothes are, even older cars with adaptive cruise control can see and apply standard protocol at night with a lead vehicle with no lights on. Because it doesn't need light, or if it does, it's not more light than the headlights are providing. Some cars for a while have even offered night vision (I believe this is a Cadillac feature and some other brands have taken it too). So if you're a drug dealer and you're trying to evade police, you could turn your car's lights off and still drive (slowly) and look at your infotainment screen which is providing a view of what's ahead of you, as if you were wearing night vision goggles.
@@morbidmanmusic Freedom is protecting yourself. That means wearing a mask, having weapons and being able to go where you want. Which for most people, that means having a car.
An assist if anything due to safety... the security on this has to be tight. Thermal distancing sensor yet placement so not have the ground interfere. Or your wanting to go to distancing of said object at this location and just essentially have a pin marker or just the outline is enough of said object.
The cars have people inside and these people can get mad and some of these mad people will get out of the car. It's like people walking on the sidewalk. We follow the flow and rules of walking on the sidewalk. If the cars were empty then yes, people would jaywalk wherever they wanted.
You guys missed a really big point about self driving cars. Where does it stop? Will we have self walking robots so we no longer have to walk? Think of the movie Wall-E, where the humans live out of their reclining chairs only drinking shakes (because chewing food is so much effort). There's something uniquely human about getting in and driving a car. You can get a sense of what I mean when you think about the difference between a manual and an automatic. I've always driven a manual. It's simply more engaging, more fun, more 'me actually doing something'. I've been in situations where I needed to rent a car, and they were all automatics. The very first thing I noticed was just how "disconnected" I was from driving - and that's just because there was no stick. I can imagine even more 'disconnect' in a self driving car. The car becomes just one more place for people to put their heads down and stare into "the great abyss" (otherwise known as a cell phone). - Think about how connected to your city you are when you are engaged in the driving process. You notice new shops going in, you get a sense of the people milling about, etc. etc. But in a Waymo, you'll get none of that. Get in, swipe your card, put your head in your phone, get out... Your city/environment fades to nothing... - I get convenience. But at a certain point, too much convenience sucks the life out of living.
"The only reason we dont ride our bikes everywhere is because we're terrified of being hit." Naaaah, the 30° hills and 10 miles between me and my destination are the reason I dont ride my bike everywhere...
I'm not so sure human driven cars will actually be eliminated. There will always be people who feel strongly that it is their right to operate their own vehicle and people can be very attached to their cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc..
Glad I own a brand new truck with a stick. Feels like the way this guy talks it's going to be the last real vehicle I get to drive anymore before we are all forced to pay subscription services for transportation pods.
Yes! I drive a lot in downtown LA, and I can assure there are a lot of (people) in the streets who will wander around in the streets, just because they seem to enjoy messing with the people in the cars. These folks are , by virtue of their social status, pretty much arrest proof. I can't wait to see what actual solution is developed for this problem.
I got a solution, walkable cities. Yes, making cities where people can easily walk around to get to work means that you don’t need to be in a self-driving car to get where you’re going, or can take transit or even bike. In fact, you don’t even need self/driving cars in the first place when that happens. The people who still go in cars know that it will take longer because of the inconsiderate pedestrians that exist, so you solve congestion in the process. And since walkable means that places are closer together, the trip times will actually decrease- even for cars. Cities, especially ones in the Netherlands have already done a lot of these things, and pedestrians almost always have right of way anyways, so the problem has pretty much been solved (despite not having actual self-driving cars, it’s similar conditions). This is also not mentioning all the other problems from car-centricity it solves (no more urban sprawl, economic sustainability, less energy intensive, no batteries that are unethically created, nicer place to live in, etc.)
Question: when will *all* cars be self-driving? Answer: not in this century. We'd have to outlaw manual driving. The public will not stand for that. Autonomy will displace a *lot* of manual driving, eventually. Risk to pedestrians will fall. But there will still be manual drivers; and so pedestrians will not have worry-free access to roads and highways.
You side-stepped the trolley problem. One core assumption in that exercise is that the trolley would not be able to stop in time so the choice must be made.
Neil, kindly stop talking over your guests, let them talk and finish their thought, you already have most videos where you're doing the talking. Learn from Joe Rogan.
1. Will emergency vehicles be autonomous as well? :) 2. There will be huge opposition. This may not apply to urban environment, but generally some people simply enjoy driving. 3. Human drivers may be way more prone to making errors, but they make up a scattered, disconnected system. Autonomous cars + IOT open up a whole new world of possibilities of wrongdoing.. That being said, I don't mean to say the whole idea is very bad and needs to be scrapped. There will simply be new challenges, and the best part is many of them are unforeseeable because we're notoriously bad at predicting consequences of what we're doing, especially if we do it on a large scale.
I’m from a relatively small town. And one time, I went to Manhattan and thought it would be a great idea to go bike around the city on a tandem bike. Terrible idea. Scariest bike ride of my life and I’ve done mountain biking before
If you watch carefully, Gladwell is spot-on. Autonomous vehicle technology is evolving very quickly. The fatality in Arizona was an Uber self-driving vehicle, and they shut down their operation pretty quickly. Waymo, Cruise, and another few AV companies have been operating in Arizona for years since without any at fault incidents. I used to do traffic reports on the radio in AZ, and there were more accidents per HOUR than we could reasonably report.
What I've heard about self driving cars is that they do end up getting into accidents because they will not break the law, which means that when they merge onto the intestate, that the when they try to merge on, they won't speed upto merge onto traffic moving faster than the legal speed and end up causing an accident.
That will happen when you have self driving cars and cars driven by people mixing because humans don’t follow the rules, so there’s incidents for accidents to happen.
@@AliMohamed-yq4wn Yeah, my guess is that full AI merging will be pretty seamless because all affected vehicles will be communicating and telegraphing their intentions to each other in a network
A mix of autonomous and human driven vehicles is a recipe for disaster. It will only work if ALL vehicles are autonomous and human driving is illegal. They just eliminate the human controls.
@@chrisgraham2904 I don't completely agree. I think both will be able to coexist just fine. I don't see any reason why it would have to be 100% either way
I know this is 3 years later, however with a Tesla and FSD, it’s insane that the car can actually see people before I can, including a few times where there was a black person in all black at night, my car saw them so much sooner and was reacting to them before I had any clue they were there. Overall this is an amazing video and I think a modern remake would be amazing with the current advancements.
Am I the only one who can’t believe the conversation focused on Waymo’s walled, mapped, training wheeled system instead of Tesla’s FSD that is figuring out real world driving on ALL roads?
That’s what I’ve always brought up as it stands a driver causes an accident a driver is sued the funds are limited lawyers im sure are foaming at the mouth for these autonomous cars to slip up and the chance to go after Tesla GM Google etc
As long as AVs aren't also connected vehicles (CVs) AV driving won't be fully realized. That is the vehicle's AI is communicating with other vehicles, pedestrians' cellphones, and the roadside infrastructure directly. The CV technology was on the verge of deployment before all the AV stuff but the telecomms convinced (bribed??) the FCC board to take away the DSRC band from transportation only use to give spectrum for entertainment stuff.
Another thing to look at is if psychopaths evolved to scare people into obedience, but we say anxiety evolved to keep us safe from predators but now our society easily causes too many unnecessarily and harmful anxieties, the same could be said for psychopaths. That we can perhaps create better systems of thinking and behaving, so instead of fear and delusion being the motivating factor, we are driven by knowledge to make better people out of ourselves. But no! Instead we always justify the destructive path... Specifically because destroyers can destroy redeemer, but redeemers might not destroy destroyers.
What I worry about is the route and the destination. An ad algorithm will probably control where the car drives so you see certain things and so on. And then what happens when the two or three businesses that control self driving cars no longer want you to go to certain places. Say you want to go to an upmarket suburb where the super wealthy live but the algorithm doesn't think you belong there for example. Maybe it's more profitable to not allow people to go to remote places anymore. This is after self-driving is banned of course.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
A beaming commentary on human nature: people will acts like jerks if there are no consequences.
For sure, and not only "innocents" which jaywalk but hackers and malicious parties who could exploit these "autonomous" systems much more easily than a human driver.
While today it's necessary to hack into the car's systems itself (which has been proven to be possible numerous times), these cars will be much easier to manipulate as they rely a lot on external data, and as we know user generated input is one of the easiest vectors of attack.
Agreed for the most part. A lot of people lack integrity. However, a few of us actually behave according to an internal ruleset, and will do so even if we aren't being observed.
It certainly explains a lot of comments on RUclips.
Not the case. Often what is attributed to human nature is actually human cultural and societal norms. For example in the UK, most people will stop at a red light, even if it's the middle of nowhere, there are no other cars on the road and zero chance of getting caught. Humans are highly conditioned in a myriad of ways which makes the idea of 'human nature' somewhat of a myth.
In video games where death is nothing. People treat killing someone as a casual insult or a prank.
Test all the Autonomous Car in India. Specially Mumbai or Chennai. The ultimate driving test of both Human and Ai.
Hahahahahahaha… The AI will go dormant and never return.
We Indians don't take road safety seriously, and this not something to brag about but to be ashamed of.
After they graduate the Mumbai and Chennai take them to Dhaka Bangladesh, the ULTIMATE test.
@@sufsanin1917 bro, I'm from Bangladesh as well, Dhaka traffic is slowest in the world but the traffic of Mumbai is something else. Nothing can be compared with it. The only word that can justify, "CRAZY"
@@tanvirapu885 Does Mumbai have rickshaws?
"The only reason we don't ride our bikes everywhere is the fear that we'll get hit."
I can honestly say that this reason _never entered my mind_ because well before this, I rejected the idea because _I am fat and lazy._
-Edit. And privileged. I'm also privileged. Thank you Deathstroke.
See I have no choice but to ride a bike or walk
My first thought was because places are far away.
Honesty. How refreshing!
@@Joeballs187 What about public Transit
Not having a bike also makes it difficult to ride one everywhere.
You can program the cars to honk and keep on honking loudly when they realise that its unusual/inappropiate crossing. And automatcally call the police. There are still rules.
Preach @TimBruns. I agree, as long as it has a processor, it's tech and it can be programmed.
And they always have camera watching to give to the Police and "prove their innocence".
This was my first thought... they have to "injure" the misbehaving pedestrian, if only injury to the pleasure of their inappropriate walk... focused sonics that make them feel uneasy... we'll slowly train them to be better peds. Pavlov would be proud. ;)
Driverless cars should handle misbehaving pedestrians the same way you handle misbehaving cats.
Equip the driverless cars with squirt guns.
Problem solved.
they could have a version for NYC that honks and doesn't slow down
I'm so ahead of the game. I asked my driving instructor back in the late 80s what would happen if a car arrived at each point of a crossroads simultaneously, who would have right of way. Wouldn't they just all sit there forever? (I was kinda green back then) He said not to worry because nobody on the road is that polite
Well, psych! I win.
Here in canada its a law that the person on the right of you would have right of way, and usually that never happens, but if it does, theres always one aggressive one out of the bunch.
@@harsimranbansal5355but every driver is on the right of another. You are right this gets resolved because somebody is more aggressive.
hi simon, iam your car teacher from back in the 80´s. and i gonna say iam disappointed in you because you just a piece of shiat.
@@harsimranbansal5355 That's what i was taught... if the car to the right arrived at the same time as you, let them go. (Although cars arriving simultaneously at all points of an intersection causes a problem.)
I remember hearing about a question on a driving test, I think in Germany, that asks who what order 4 vehicles that arrive at an intersection would go. The vehicles were yours, a police car, a postal vehicle, and an ambulance.
The thing is, a lot of self-driving cars will have a passenger on board. And even if the car won't hit you, that passenger is likely to get out and punch you. So I think this is a social issue that passengers will solve. lol
Does the car let u get out at any point u want though?
@@kylonbrooks140 My guess would be that it is in Waymo's best interests not to let that happen. A sore loser will find that car an easy target
the laws of robotics would need to allow the AI to hit pedestrian traffic if it prevents the passenger from getting from point A to point B. 😄
Better have a club to beat back as a pedestrian. The real social issues is the amount of space cars take up.
Came here to say the same thing.
I can’t wait to see impatient drivers in self driving cars lose their minds when all cars on the road are treated equally and they can’t drive aggressively
Solution
All the cops who were handing out traffic violations, now instead can pass out tickets to pedestrians.
Solution
social credit
@@S0UPIE you drunk or joking. Or do you want to be a robot
@@ddsjgvk i am joking, i think the base concept is really good. the real problem is how and where they implement it
@@S0UPIE as far as I know even China never implemented that. Even the base concept isn't that good.
lol
My favorite quote, “Here I am on a podcast with Neil deGrasse, and I am the one defending science!” I about spit out my coffee.
When Neil asked “how do you convince people that 2000 deaths is better than 35,000 deaths?” I thought to myself that is simultaneously the dumbest and smartest question I’ve ever heard.
When you've been following EVs for a while its even more understandable. Every time a Tesla has an AI crash it is BIG news, yet the facts show Teslas operating on AI have nearly a ten fold lower chance of an accident than a human alone.
So very true really depends if you are 1 of the 2000 or 1 of the 35000 that would skew your thinking!!
@@robertbushnell781, but you cannot know which group you will be a part of, or even if you will be a part of either group. So the optimal choice is to choose the smaller number of deaths so that you and your loved ones have the lowest chance of being hurt.
"The only thing preventing us from riding our bicycle everywhere is fear"? Or maybe not all of us live in a big city and riding a bicycle would make our commute 4 hours each way...
And like, weather?
yeah, people get into their own bubble and assume the rest of the world shares their same problem-set lol. I love riding my bike, but it takes me 20 minutes in a car (mostly highway) to get to work.. this would be insane 2x a day on a bike, when would I sleep?
I do agree if I lived downtown in some larger city, a car would be almost worthless. More liability to find parking and get vandalized than convenient. It's all perspective.
@@kyoopihd I’m 99% sure ur not made of sugar.
@@akunog3665 On the large scale, a major factor is the fear/lack of safe infrastructure. People at their intelligence never truly mean everyone, they mean a large enough portion to be a strong majority..
The way to solve that issue? Make cities dense enough to be bike-able (which doesn’t mean skyscrapers, it only needs 3-6 story mixed use buildings). Nearly everywhere outside farms in the Netherlands have bike infrastructure that the majority of people there use, and it works perfectly fine, because of how their infrastructure is built! No need for self-driving cars, either!
It can't get any better, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Malcolm Gladwell talking about self-driving car!!
Please arrange more of this.
Probably the best science influencer with an excellent dynamic with its videos. Guest speakers providing their knowledge, Neil simplifying and/or adding incredible information to us, and lastly our lovely Chuck, understanding and going with the flow of the conversation while still cracking jokes to put a smile on your face (tbh I sometimes need to rewind or look up stuff to understand certain things further ~mad respect~).
I’m concerned about the cars. Just imagine, if there are cars on the road, it would drastically change the relationship between people and horses.
Nice!
Noice!
If you are going to be that sensible, then you are not allowed to post on the internet.
UTU49 If you’re completely impervious to humor, then you should not read and reply to posts you read on the internet.
@@cloudrouju526 You need a better reading comprehension.
Gladwell is the perfect guest for this channel. The chemistry is palpable. More, please!
A point of contention. Even with self driving cars (which I'm very much in favor of), I'd still never ride my bike. For two primary reasons. One, even though I live in a major metropolitan city (Detroit), places are still too far apart, especially for the average of 150 miles per day that I drive. And two, we have very harsh winters, which is prohibitive of bicycle riding.
While your guest made many great points, he does have a narrow mindset of an individual whose life is wrapped up in a relatively small space (NYC). The rest of the country isn't NYC; it's very different.
I worked active safely in the car industry 15 years ago and we used to talk a lot about how pedestrians will “abuse” the system. It’s an interesting problem, but it is not something nobody thought about before.
Hi all. You ought to know this is just a segment of the whole episode and the whole thing is so worth it to watch.
To have such high level thinking and ridiculously silly laughs in one episode was amazing!
....makes you wonder what Einstein's Laugh sounded like? 🤓..😅
Definitely some food for thought,
You're riding over a two lane bridge at 55mph, there's a pedestrian walking on the right shoulder, and an oncoming truck in the other lane. The pedestrian suddenly leaps in front of your car, and with insufficient space to stop before striking the suicidal/inconceivably unlucky pedestrian what does your car decide to do? Does it A: Strike the pedestrian, B: Swerve into the oncoming truck, or C: Swerve off the bridge?
I would like to know how self-driving cars handle snowy conditions.
Given my experiences with my Tesla, I would say that autonomous cars handle snowy conditions very poorly. A light snowfall (or fog, or heavy rain) is enough to get the Tesla autopilot to disengage. I’m sure that is one of the reasons Waymo tested first in Phoenix not Buffalo.
If they don't know how to drift they don't know how to drive in the snow...
@@jpe1 heavy rain? I've only had autopilot refuse to engage once in heavy rain and it was so bad most people were just stopped at the side of the road. I've actually been really impressed with how well it handles rain. Haven't been able to try it with snow yet, but I imagine if the lines were covered it wouldn't work. Of course, it may be a slight difference in autopilot versions/hardware. I got my model 3 in early 2021.
I would bet you a million dollars that even if driverless cars don't handle snowy conditions particularly well, they would still be far better than most human drivers.
The last time I was driving in terrible snowy conditions, everyone was driving extremely well. But that was only because all the bad drivers had already slid off the road and into a ditch.
It will drive you to hot, dry place, like California .
I've read three of his bestsellers , truly amazing author with brilliant insights .
I don't understand why he just didn't say something akin to: "As software developers, we need to keep in mind every person in every given situation, but if those conditions aren't met then there's a real problem that needs to be solved before we move on."
I will say it again. Going from drunks driving cars to cars driving drunks is progress!
People will walk out into traffic not leaving enough time for the self driving vehicle to stop.
Maybe. But I expect a self-driving car, and all the other self-driving cars around it, will figure out how to safely swerve around the jaywalker.
A new sport may arise... how to mess with self-driving cars "most effectively". How many cars can you make stop with a single action? How close to getting hit? Can you illicit profanities from one or more self-driving cars?
@@CarFreeSegnitz Yes, but then, thanks to that new sport, a human driven car will rear end the self driving car. Maybe the car can figure out to apply the brakes in a few micro seconds, but it still takes the human a second to realize that.
@@CarFreeSegnitz have you taken a physics class? that's not physically possible if you step into a path of a car moving fast enough lol.
@@lowmax4431 an A.I simply wont let a person get close enough while it is moving fast enough, drving A.I's tend to do this thing where they not only read the current information, but also predict a bunch of future possibilities and plans accordingly, the A.I will already have planned for the possibility of you doing this, and will have planned a way to avoid it.
Self-driving cars react faster than human drivers. If a person steps out into traffic any faster than that, they didn't have a chance anyway.
Love this channel! Very few people have the capability to combine scientific knowledge and comedy. With Neil, Chuck and their guess, I always learn something new, or a different perspective on something that I already knew, and laugh while doing so! Thanks Dr. Tyson!
The issue I see with self-driving cars is, that they might work perfectly when conditions are fine, but they rarely are. There are so many weird construction sites, detours, closed lanes and unmarket backroads here in Germany that even human drivers are constantly confused. I don't think an AI stands a chance...
I wouldn't worry about that. They've already started testing/training for weird conditions like Halloween in the US, where a bunch of kids are out on the street at dusk or after dark wearing all kinds of costumes. So it's not like they aren't considering abnormal conditions. Secondly, humans are sometimes going to be confused by situations that wouldn't confuse a computer. Just because humans have some difficulty driving in certain circumstances doesn't necessarily mean self-driving cars will also have difficulties in that situation.
@@Tantalus010
Let's hope so!
Best quip in this entire conversation comes near the end from Malcolm Gladwell. Priceless!
I've seen this problem with AGV's. I helped implement it in a hospital and it gets even worse. Everyone will be testing the AGV's responsiveness. Like jumping in front of them.
I think the problem is that many do not differentiate. Selfdriving cars in a predictable environment are great!
The problem occurs when things happen they weren't prepared for. I'd argue, that having them in cities would be fine. On highways in remote areas may still cause issues.
Sure but probably less issues than we have still currently?
@@XFizzlepop-Berrytwist what issues do we currently have with driving on highways, that would be immediately fixed with selfdriving cars? Deer jumping out with no time to move out of the way? A car at highway speed requires some 500 feet to stop, and deer can jump put 200, or even 100 feet in front of you
There may be no stat, but in traffic school 20 years ago, my instructor said "most" accidents happen because people are in a hurry, so plan to get anywhere you're going 15 minutes early. No wrecks or tickets since then.
Something that i wll do right now: I ll schedule to watch this clip again in 5 and 10 years.
You're a man that thinks long term. I think that you will or have done well in life.
@@darrell3643 😍😍😍
RUclips will do it for you I guess!.
@@XaximRumble
Ooooooh. I like it.
There was a road safety campaign aboit 15-20 years ago here in Australia…showing a young lady crossing a street, an oncoming car is doing 5km/h over the posted speed limit, can’t slow down in time, and the woman is knocked down her head cracking the windshield etc…then the narrator rewinds and says “let’s just change one thing (down to actual speed limit)…the woman is still knocked down, but MUCH gentler and the campaign slogan comes up
“5kmh slower, she’d only have a bruised leg”
The campaign got pulled though because of some of the rules regarding depiction of collisions and accidents and rules regarding what can be shown, and why some things can’t be…
Someone rightly pointed out “yes, a very important message…but let’s change one OTHER important aspect and change the slogan to go with it
“5Koh slower she’d only have a bruised leg…but if she’d bothered to LOOK BEFORE CROSSING, she’d never get hit in the first place”
The self driving cars won't hit you if you are exercising in the middle of the road, but the passengers of the car might get out and hit you.
I would like to see how a driverless car handles:
- Aquaplaning
- Loss of traction due to water on the road or oil on the road (from a previous accident)
- A tyre blowout while driving, etc...
A human can compensate for these things and I've no doubt that you could program a driverless car to be able to deal with such scenarios, but I really want to know if driverless cars are CURRENTLY able to deal with such scenarios.
I find this video fascinating in how car-centric the perspective is. Pedestrians are viewed as obstacles that need to be scared off the street. This is very much a North American perspective. Many European cities already design urban streets to be pedestrian-centric and somewhat unfriendly towards cars, but they also invest much more heavily in good public transit and bike paths and good zoning laws too, so people don't *need* to drive as much.
That said, one reason I can see for manual override is if some enterprising criminals take advantage of the safety features to stop your car and mug you. I don't foresee this as being a major problem that would in any way diminish the weight of statistics in terms of lives saved by self-driving cars, but nonetheless it is a problem worth considering.
America is too large for small scale European public transportation. It won't work here.
@@ZootSuitJZ Whether public transportation is successful really depends on how much public transportation infrastructure is prioritized in civil planning, *not* on how "big" a country is. Most of us live in urban areas. 83% of us, to be precise. In fact, the degree of urbanization in North America is actually higher, on average, than Europe (82% vs. 75%).
The problem is that in the United States, we greatly deprioritize public transportation infrastructure because we have a strong institutional and cultural focus on individual cars. Compounding that problem, we design our cities (through zoning laws) to separate residential and commercial land to the point that it's almost impossible to get _anything_ done without a vehicle.
It's not just culture. It's a decades long crafting of public policy (starting with the Post-WW2 period) through zoning laws and federal funding to make it almost impossible to build anything else. If anything, the culture is _caused_ by the policy, rather than the other way around. Now, there are _several_ generations of Americans who have grown up in car-centric suburbs and have never known it was even possible to have a suburb that is _not_ car-centric.
We don't need a public transportation infrastructure for bringing people from Los Angeles to San Francisco or New York. We don't need to connect one metropolitan area to another. What we need public transportation infrastructure for is to interconnect the suburbs to the city center. And there are very few urban areas in the United States that make much of an effort in this area. Furthermore, we need to design our cities such that you don't need a car to accomplish even the tiniest of tasks. Where the closest grocery store is a small outlet down your street rather than the department store 2+ miles away.
Transit infrastructure should be designed to get cars off the road, because that's how you move the most people per hour. A bus moves _way_ more people per hour than if all of those people were in cars. A train moves more than a bus. Etc. Every single person who decides to take public transit instead of driving is one less car on the road and therefore makes it faster for everyone to get where they're going.
@@discipleoferis549...or, you know, it's just too big. Not even counting personal transportation, just work alone, I can travel 400 miles in a single day (making only 2-6 stops)(I'm a sales manager for a window manufacturer) . No public transportation system will ever meet those needs. Then, for personal transportation (shopping, visiting friends and family, etc) can sometimes exceed 200 miles in a day. No one has the hours in a day to spend waiting on public transportation for all of those stops. So, again, small scale European public transportation would never work here. Places we go are too spread out. I live in Detroit, an absolutely HUGE city by itself, not even counting the surrounding suburbs. Just inside of Detroit proper, you can fit the entire cities of Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco, and still have space leftover. Small scale European public transportation cannot and will not EVER work here.
@@ZootSuitJZ It sounds like you're describing why you need a car for your job. Maybe you do need a car, and it's best for you. I don't know if you noticed, but people still drive in Europe all the time.
Again, the size of America isn't what causes public transportation to be difficult. It's intentional car-centric civil planning that makes it hard to create good public transportation.
You are absolutely correct that public transit wouldn't with well for your specific scenario. Doesn't affect what I said one bit.
@@discipleoferis549 European public transportation won't work for the majority. I'm not alone in this.
Other than a few retirees I know, everyone else can't benefit from what Europe does, because, well, we're not Europe.
Our country is too large, our lives are too spread out, and our schedules can't work with the slowness of public transportation.
My office is ten miles from my primary residence, and 18 miles from my other home.
Just my morning commute alone takes me through 5 different cities. (I live near the borders of all of them) As well as a few of my colleagues.
Plus, people don't always live where they work. Many live in one city, and work in another.
Not to mention, the public transportation that we do have, shuts down during the frequent snow storms we experience, but our jobs don't shut down.
America is not Europe.
We have different needs than Europe. Their solutions are for them, not us.
The biggest problem that this is not considering, is that the companies are not considering some of the psychology of driving. There's people out there who actually enjoy driving and wouldn't change to autonomous driving, in the same way there's a lot of people who prefer to drive mechanic over automatic, human preference will make it so that a lot of people will rather prefer to drive than have an autonomous car.
I think there is an analogous situation to draw from here: Elevators, manned then unmanned and now ubiquitous trust in them.
They're unmanned, but they're directly controlled by the occupants. There's no AI involved.
@@francesbadger3401
The passengers just chose the floor to stop at. The system does the rest. Granted, it has limited options.
Isn't that a faulty analogy?
Elevators are not deadly. They do not involve varying speeds, steering, or obstacles.
@@francesbadger3401
Agreed. I'm sure they are all managed by computers now, but the programming would be less than 1% as complicated as the programming for driverless cars.
As a driver of an emergency vehicle, I'd like to know if these cars get out of the way, as I've seen plenty of humans that totally ignore sirens and flashing lights
Saw a video on Veritaserum that mentioned that the google cars pick up sounds particularly siren sounds so that they can pull over immediately to let emergency vehicle pass
@@Luumus I think the Teslas hear sirens also. The future will be without sirens as the vehicles will communicate with each other
and traffic would part like the red sea to let a silent emergency vehicle pass.
And what happened in American Football when they started wearing hard helmets?
They started using their helmets as a weapon, and concussions are a real issue now.
Almost got run off the road by a pickup for sport while I was biking last week. Road rage is pretty frequent. Also a carless driver almost nailed me head on at 45mph from the opposing lane. Came within a foot of dying there. I welcome self driving cars.
Was this podcast and veritasiums waymo a coordinated upload?
That's where i heard it... Veritasium Thank you it was driving me crazy
I have a 2017 automobile with active speed control. It will pace the vehicle ahead up to it's set speed . . . . . . . . . . Unless the vehicle ahead is a motorcycle. It may not "see" a motorcycle.
I did not hit the motorcycle (which was doing 10-15 mph less then me, only because I realized I was closing on the motorcycle in time to avoid the problem.
Take care and keep your mind on the road.
Technological assist systems ONLY ASSIST.
I'm sooooo lonely. I need more friends like you guys.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, that was really heart-warming.
I worked on an autonomous car and developed some interfaces to program in an aspect of respect for the robot cars so the pedestrians will hold the same respect for them as they do for cars driven by people. It was a multi-tiered approach and included blended traffic. I felt like it needed further testing and development, but the premise is still a major problem.
I can actually address much of the issues discussed on this excerpt. I need to watch the whole thing.
So a USA based thing only then as that would have very shaky grounds to be legal in the first place most places
The bias of the kind mentioned is not possible in autonomous vehicles because there are usually installed with lidar, so they should be programmed to stop whatever comes infront of it.
And even if it doesn't have lidar there will be infrared or other night time vision cameras and having all possible variation of dataset will solve the problem completely if it exists.
Tesla's do not use lidar. I think that they have another type of sensor though, but couldn't say what it is.
If there are no one driving, we also wouldn't need stop lights or nearly any signs in the road (except for pedestrians) and the cars would move much faster than today. While they would do the best that they can to stop, there are no guarantees they will and it's pretty hard to stop a car going 100km/h (~60mi/h) or even more. It would be pretty scary crossing a road of vehicles moving that fast unless it was a quiet road and the car was far away (which people would totally jaywalk now anyway). So, I don't think that'll ultimately be a problem, although it may be a bit annoying during a transition period when most cars are self driving but not all.
Anyone who thinks that autonomous vehicles mean it's ok to mess with it and the people riding in them with this kind of childishness needs to be locked up for serious time for their own well being.
I don't think most people will actually do this
@@Alex-02 Sadly, there are videos of many people trying to "outsmart" the autopilot. So I don't hold out hope that this would be beyond the pale for them....
I remember a truck driver award given to a guy who drove 40 years without an accident. They asked him what his secret was and he said, "Never drive when you are angry or in a hurry". All self-driving cars will have his mindset.
"...Plus [the self-driving vehicles] don't consume ethanol"
*The Renewable Fuel Standard has entered the chat.
FINALLY! Three people that are saying what I've been saying for two decades!!
Weather and disability are also reasons not to ride a bike. Distance traveled too.
They are clearly talking about people who CAN ride somewhere would.
Also not wanting to do exercise
@@reversethepolarityoftheneu773 ikr ...its SO hard
I love watching these guys
“These guys are crazy! I can’t wash my hands in the airport!”
Line of the clip!
... and my Band-Aid is finally skin color
All he had to do is turn his hands palms up. Thought he would be smart enough to figure that out.
Just an observation, how cars have taken precedence over other transit, including pedestrians. Socially, few will even question which has the higher priority, and which should defer to which.
12:05 is a serious question regarding autonomous sensors. “Clear street ahead, keep going” lol
You would hope they add sensors that could help the car see in the dark.
And they build in priority that if a sensor detects a persons - when in doubt with the other sensors, it will reduce speed/stop.
The other thing is - lets say we get near reducing nearly all traffic deaths to 0.
At some point there is going to be a law or security standard - some country on the globe is going to enforce this - that new cars after year 20XX will need to pass a certain safety test. We do crash testing now on cars - there will be an AI test and sensor test in the future.
Its cheaper for the manifacturer to build only a few models of the cars - and having high safety features will be a selling point. After there is a first country, the majority of cars being sold will be much safer.
Its going to be late, as all new laws on tech always are - but it will be there.
Thermal/infrared cameras as a secondary navigation tracking. Thay way, even if there is a lot of heat registering in the street, the car can avoid it. Forward looking infared is an early 80s technology.
Keep looking up
Unless they also find a way for brakes to stop a car instantaneously, you would still be at considerable risk if you decided to play in traffic.
stopping distance
My first thought about when cars are self driving was that this will make theft sooooo easy. Step in front of a self driving semi, it will stop. Step in front of an armored car, it will stop.
My man looks like a black Christopher Walken 😂 Love the charisma 👌
Malcom is black?! huh? 100% Honestly never occurred to me to think of him as black. Honestly. I actually had to scroll back up to the video to be sure who you were referring to as being like Christopher Walken. I s'pose the 'fro might've clued me in but I never thought of that as strictly a black thing.
@@grejen711 It was just the first thing that popped in my head once I started the video lol
Cars don't use a standard camera to detect a person or in other words they're not basically operating like a dash cam video format that stops when movement occurs.
They operate on a radar style system, so no, it shouldn't matter how dark your skin or clothes are, even older cars with adaptive cruise control can see and apply standard protocol at night with a lead vehicle with no lights on. Because it doesn't need light, or if it does, it's not more light than the headlights are providing. Some cars for a while have even offered night vision (I believe this is a Cadillac feature and some other brands have taken it too). So if you're a drug dealer and you're trying to evade police, you could turn your car's lights off and still drive (slowly) and look at your infotainment screen which is providing a view of what's ahead of you, as if you were wearing night vision goggles.
America will never go all the way autonomous because driving means freedom to Americans.
I thought that freedom was no masks, and guns. Travel is freedom, not cars specifically.
@@morbidmanmusic Freedom is protecting yourself. That means wearing a mask, having weapons and being able to go where you want. Which for most people, that means having a car.
@@morbidmanmusic nothing is free anymore, just like Energy, Water and Air...
An assist if anything due to safety... the security on this has to be tight. Thermal distancing sensor yet placement so not have the ground interfere. Or your wanting to go to distancing of said object at this location and just essentially have a pin marker or just the outline is enough of said object.
The fear?... Being hacked and trapped and ran into a lake or cliff or wall or,...........
Also sounds mostly about distance's due to specific situations for the buffer area to act.
The cars have people inside and these people can get mad and some of these mad people will get out of the car. It's like people walking on the sidewalk. We follow the flow and rules of walking on the sidewalk. If the cars were empty then yes, people would jaywalk wherever they wanted.
When you say program the car to be a little bit crazy, I immediately thought of Arnold's Total Recall movie with Johnny Cab.
Wouldn't you consider having a self-driving software on the show? That would be logical
You guys missed a really big point about self driving cars. Where does it stop? Will we have self walking robots so we no longer have to walk? Think of the movie Wall-E, where the humans live out of their reclining chairs only drinking shakes (because chewing food is so much effort). There's something uniquely human about getting in and driving a car. You can get a sense of what I mean when you think about the difference between a manual and an automatic. I've always driven a manual. It's simply more engaging, more fun, more 'me actually doing something'. I've been in situations where I needed to rent a car, and they were all automatics. The very first thing I noticed was just how "disconnected" I was from driving - and that's just because there was no stick. I can imagine even more 'disconnect' in a self driving car. The car becomes just one more place for people to put their heads down and stare into "the great abyss" (otherwise known as a cell phone).
-
Think about how connected to your city you are when you are engaged in the driving process. You notice new shops going in, you get a sense of the people milling about, etc. etc. But in a Waymo, you'll get none of that. Get in, swipe your card, put your head in your phone, get out... Your city/environment fades to nothing...
-
I get convenience. But at a certain point, too much convenience sucks the life out of living.
So nice to hear someone say its fine to get rid of cars in the city.
They are running into the "not recognizing darker skin" problem with image recognition.
This was so fun and interesting to watch
"The only reason we dont ride our bikes everywhere is because we're terrified of being hit."
Naaaah, the 30° hills and 10 miles between me and my destination are the reason I dont ride my bike everywhere...
He's talking about cities where you have to go small distances lol.
I'm not so sure human driven cars will actually be eliminated. There will always be people who feel strongly that it is their right to operate their own vehicle and people can be very attached to their cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc..
Glad I own a brand new truck with a stick. Feels like the way this guy talks it's going to be the last real vehicle I get to drive anymore before we are all forced to pay subscription services for transportation pods.
If it's public transport, it'd just come out of your taxes.
@@Plystire if it's public it will likely be overcrowded and poorly maintained. Worse it will be unusable anywhere outside of a city.
If it is public, the management and fees will go to the mayor's friend's. Some things never change.
PEVs, transit in city centers. Boring company tunnels for taking cars under/around city centers. Looking forward to that future.
Yes! I drive a lot in downtown LA, and I can assure there are a lot of (people) in the streets who will wander around in the streets, just because they seem to enjoy messing with the people in the cars. These folks are , by virtue of their social status, pretty much arrest proof. I can't wait to see what actual solution is developed for this problem.
I got a solution, walkable cities. Yes, making cities where people can easily walk around to get to work means that you don’t need to be in a self-driving car to get where you’re going, or can take transit or even bike. In fact, you don’t even need self/driving cars in the first place when that happens. The people who still go in cars know that it will take longer because of the inconsiderate pedestrians that exist, so you solve congestion in the process. And since walkable means that places are closer together, the trip times will actually decrease- even for cars.
Cities, especially ones in the Netherlands have already done a lot of these things, and pedestrians almost always have right of way anyways, so the problem has pretty much been solved (despite not having actual self-driving cars, it’s similar conditions). This is also not mentioning all the other problems from car-centricity it solves (no more urban sprawl, economic sustainability, less energy intensive, no batteries that are unethically created, nicer place to live in, etc.)
Great explanation of corner cases!
Question: when will *all* cars be self-driving?
Answer: not in this century. We'd have to outlaw manual driving. The public will not stand for that.
Autonomy will displace a *lot* of manual driving, eventually. Risk to pedestrians will fall.
But there will still be manual drivers; and so pedestrians will not have worry-free access to roads and highways.
Great guest to have on!
I enjoyed this episode, a lot. Also everyone radiates heat, which is still a wave of light.
Same. In all fairness, though, every Startalk episode is enjoyable
Thanks that was fun.
Iam here
Me too.. hello 👋
You side-stepped the trolley problem. One core assumption in that exercise is that the trolley would not be able to stop in time so the choice must be made.
Exactly what I was thinking. There was some reason it couldn't stop so it had to decide.
Neil, kindly stop talking over your guests, let them talk and finish their thought, you already have most videos where you're doing the talking. Learn from Joe Rogan.
1. Will emergency vehicles be autonomous as well? :)
2. There will be huge opposition. This may not apply to urban environment, but generally some people simply enjoy driving.
3. Human drivers may be way more prone to making errors, but they make up a scattered, disconnected system. Autonomous cars + IOT open up a whole new world of possibilities of wrongdoing..
That being said, I don't mean to say the whole idea is very bad and needs to be scrapped. There will simply be new challenges, and the best part is many of them are unforeseeable because we're notoriously bad at predicting consequences of what we're doing, especially if we do it on a large scale.
In Finland where I grew up we wore reflectors. Jaywalking in Sweden, I think is a liability issue if somebody gets hurt/damaged, not a crime.
Thanks!
I’m from a relatively small town. And one time, I went to Manhattan and thought it would be a great idea to go bike around the city on a tandem bike. Terrible idea. Scariest bike ride of my life and I’ve done mountain biking before
For the car detecting peoples, It can be easy using radar system and proximity sensor or some thermal camera.
If you watch carefully, Gladwell is spot-on. Autonomous vehicle technology is evolving very quickly. The fatality in Arizona was an Uber self-driving vehicle, and they shut down their operation pretty quickly. Waymo, Cruise, and another few AV companies have been operating in Arizona for years since without any at fault incidents. I used to do traffic reports on the radio in AZ, and there were more accidents per HOUR than we could reasonably report.
What I've heard about self driving cars is that they do end up getting into accidents because they will not break the law, which means that when they merge onto the intestate, that the when they try to merge on, they won't speed upto merge onto traffic moving faster than the legal speed and end up causing an accident.
That will happen when you have self driving cars and cars driven by people mixing because humans don’t follow the rules, so there’s incidents for accidents to happen.
@@AliMohamed-yq4wn Yeah, my guess is that full AI merging will be pretty seamless because all affected vehicles will be communicating and telegraphing their intentions to each other in a network
in a polite society cars on the main road move to the lane that isn't the one the ramp cars are merging onto. That what i do, anyway.
A mix of autonomous and human driven vehicles is a recipe for disaster. It will only work if ALL vehicles are autonomous and human driving is illegal. They just eliminate the human controls.
@@chrisgraham2904 I don't completely agree. I think both will be able to coexist just fine. I don't see any reason why it would have to be 100% either way
Look at it like this, planes can practically fly themselves now days, however would you enter a passenger plane that doesn't have a pilot?
I know this is 3 years later, however with a Tesla and FSD, it’s insane that the car can actually see people before I can, including a few times where there was a black person in all black at night, my car saw them so much sooner and was reacting to them before I had any clue they were there. Overall this is an amazing video and I think a modern remake would be amazing with the current advancements.
Yes the reason I don't ride my bike to work in 100°F weather with 90% humidity has nothing to with the AC in my car.
But on a bike you have a natural AC....🤣
Awesome video!
Am I the only one who can’t believe the conversation focused on Waymo’s walled, mapped, training wheeled system instead of Tesla’s FSD that is figuring out real world driving on ALL roads?
This was great!!
One of the best videos I have seen in a very long time. Funny and very thoughtful.
The biggest problem I feel will be liability. Who's liable for an accident, the owner or the manufacturer?
That’s what I’ve always brought up as it stands a driver causes an accident a driver is sued the funds are limited lawyers im sure are foaming at the mouth for these autonomous cars to slip up and the chance to go after Tesla GM Google etc
As long as AVs aren't also connected vehicles (CVs) AV driving won't be fully realized. That is the vehicle's AI is communicating with other vehicles, pedestrians' cellphones, and the roadside infrastructure directly. The CV technology was on the verge of deployment before all the AV stuff but the telecomms convinced (bribed??) the FCC board to take away the DSRC band from transportation only use to give spectrum for entertainment stuff.
Another thing to look at is if psychopaths evolved to scare people into obedience, but we say anxiety evolved to keep us safe from predators but now our society easily causes too many unnecessarily and harmful anxieties, the same could be said for psychopaths. That we can perhaps create better systems of thinking and behaving, so instead of fear and delusion being the motivating factor, we are driven by knowledge to make better people out of ourselves.
But no! Instead we always justify the destructive path... Specifically because destroyers can destroy redeemer, but redeemers might not destroy destroyers.
What I worry about is the route and the destination. An ad algorithm will probably control where the car drives so you see certain things and so on. And then what happens when the two or three businesses that control self driving cars no longer want you to go to certain places. Say you want to go to an upmarket suburb where the super wealthy live but the algorithm doesn't think you belong there for example. Maybe it's more profitable to not allow people to go to remote places anymore.
This is after self-driving is banned of course.