Driverless cars are vehicles that have the ability to cruise through roads without human input. They normally sense the environment to enable them navigate. These cars utilize computer vision, GPS, LIDAR, Odometers, and radar to detect their surroundings (Sharon and Luka 8). The information collected by the sensors is then interpreted by advanced control systems enabling the vehicle to identify the navigation paths accurately. The sensors also enable the cars to dodge obstacles and comprehend relevant signage. The question is whether people will embrace this technology and make it their thing. The question in many peoples’ minds is the safeness of the vehicles. How many people are willing to venture into a world where they will be trusting machines to ferry them through roads which are full of human drivers? Trusting the vehicle is one thing, and trusting the other drivers is another thing. Google has its fleet of autonomous cars which utilize their software, Google Chauffeur. Google has been testing the vehicles since 2012, and as of 2016, they have safe tested the vehicles in the driverless mode for a total of 1,489,214 miles. Some states in the US have passed legislations that allow these vehicles including California. In this article, different literature on driverless cars shall be analyzed, and a conclusion regarding the same shall be drawn.
Literature Review
Against
In his article, Pinto addresses the liabilities that come with autonomous vehicles, both technological and non-technological. The innovation has made major strides in the last century, but it is yet to overcome some obstacles (Pinto 1). In analyzing the liabilities of this vehicles, the author utilizes the Google self-driving car as the reference point. Apart from criticizing the vehicles, the article acknowledges that these cars, if implemented correctly, will take the world a large step ahead. This is done by reviewing the importance of the vehicles.
Google has pioneered a lot of technology to this project, but the current state is far from perfect. There are two major problems with technology. The first issue is encountered while recognizing data and images from the cameras. The conversion of the input from cameras has been experiencing issues (Pinto 3). For instance, the camera can recognize objects from far but has a problem differentiating between two similar objects. This is a troublesome barrier, and human drivers can do much better. Another drawback comes in when the computers are trusted to make cost-benefit decisions during collisions (Pinto 3). Although the computer makes a fast decision, the final implications of that decision matter most. The computer cannot be in a position to make the best decision, compared to a human driver. Consider a situation where the car almost hits a kid crossing the road, will it hit the kid or swerve into oncoming traffic and injure the occupants?
Google has made tremendous innovations, but technological barriers still exist. The car is not yet able to function trivial human tasks such as recognizing construction workers and police officers (Pinto 4). The theory seems perfect, but in reality, it is far from perfect. Another factor that is a barrier is the state of human drivers. The drivers always tend to bend rules every now and then like speeding past stop signs. The Google car can be confused on what to do in case of such situations.
Another technological liability is computer bugs (Pinto 4). All software systems have bugs, and Google Chauffer is no different. The major barrier will be the consistency of the vehicles. With such, human beings will be confined to rely on machine smartness, which can fail at times due to bugs and common computer errors. Another unpredictable liability is that the cars shall be exposed to computer attacks. The vehicles shall be relying heavily on GPS satellites and other data systems which are vulnerable to attacks or jamming by hackers with malicious intentions.
Non-technological issues that arise with these cars include liability and insurance (Pinto 6). Manufacturers will be under high pressure since they will be perceived as the drivers of the cars. It will be hard for them to avoid liability if their cars develop any safety issues even if they build them to provide the highest statistical safety. Another issue will arise on insuring the vehicles. Although the governor of California signed a bill to allow these vehicles, the current automobile insurance legislation would not be favorable for the cars.
For
In their article, Sharon and Luka address the question whether the Google cars provides a drive to a better future. They do this by analyzing the environment through which the cars shall be operating, then recognizing the impact. The system installed in the car is reviewed, and the article discusses how the system allows for the seamless operation of the vehicle that adjusts to its environment without human input.
The first environment is car accidents. The technology installed in these cars shall move a step ahead in reducing the number of accidents on the roads (Sharon and Luka 9). This is because unlike human drivers, these cars are programmed to follow all traffic rules, and hence, shall be cruising with utmost precision and allowable speeds. Over speeding is a major cause of accidents, and these vehicles cannot over speed in whatever situation. This technology of driverless cars aims at addressing all the costs that come with accidents. In the US alone, the total cost of automobile accidents is approximately $299.5 billion per year, which includes medical costs legal costs, damage to property, travel delay, and loss of productivity. On top of these costs is the loss of lives where approximately 1.24 million people die globally per year due to accidents (Sharon and Luka 10).
These cars are also expected to impact the commuting sector positively. Apart from reducing the rate of accidents, the cars shall tremendously reduce the commuting time. Estimates by Google indicate that these vehicles can reduce commuting time by roughly 90%. This shall be through utilizing the roughly 80% of empty space on roads by forming tighter car lines on freeways (Sharon and Luka 10). Synchronized cars lines that have fewer errors allow for vehicles to travel when much closer together, and hence allows for better utilization of the road space. The vehicles are also expected to alleviate traffic congestion. Annually, traffic jams waste approximately 4.8 billion hours and almost 1.9 billion gallons of fuel in the US. The costs accompanying the jams amount to roughly $102 billion, with $6.63 billion lost in fuel costs and $93 billion in productivity. The vehicles shall also make the art of sharing vehicles easier. This is because the technology shall improve car utilization, and worries such as careless driving shall be a thing of the past. The car has the ability to deliver itself when needed and park itself when not being used. Reports indicate that the technology shall increase car utilization by an estimated 10-75% (Sharon and Luka 10).
Conclusion and Recommendations
With the correct utilization, these cars can be very useful. In order for the world to fully embrace this technology, the very first step would involve reconstructing the worn out roads so as they meet modern day requirements. This is because these vehicles shall require well market and smooth roads for smooth cruising. For instance, an autonomous prototype refused to drive itself at a press event in Los Angeles due to the poor state of the road (Sage). The road was unmarked, and hence, the vehicle could not trace its way. This is an indication that poor infrastructure is a roadblock to these vehicles, and they need to be addressed first.
Another requirement would be to handle the technological challenges. Problems such as reckless human drivers can be addressed by Google developing different personalities programs for the cars. During normal cruising, the car can be cautious and follow all rules, hence, more likely to yield to another car following the rules. The car can get aggressive whenever it is likely to be the first at stop signs. For instance, at a four-way intersection, the car can go first and yield to other cars following the rules. However, if the cars lack to reciprocate, it can advance a bit more to show the drivers how it is done. Technological liabilities such as computer bugs can be addressed by the respective companies through enforcing different levels of shutdown depending on the bug type (Pinto 5).
This technology is a good idea with the right implementation. However, it will take more time to implement due to the current state of infrastructure, especially in developing countries. The vehicles require state-of-the-art roads that will have correct marking and signage all over. In my opinion, these cars will be many on the roads in 5 years. Tech companies are becoming more devoted, and these cars are no longer a futuristic idea. Many companies, such as Tesla and Mercedes, have already released the cars, and others will in due time. It is now a question of the infrastructure state in the 5 years. However, the rate at which governors are passing the driverless cars legislation is an indication that they will focus more funds on improving the infrastructure that will go with these cars.
Works Cited
Pinto, Cyrus. "How autonomous vehicle policy in California and Nevada addresses technological and non-technological liabilities." Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology and Society 5 (2012).
Poczter, Sharon L., and Luka M. Jankovic. "The Google Car: Driving Toward a Better Future?" Journal of Business Case Studies (Online) 10.1 (2014): 7.
Sage, Alexandria. "Driverless Cars Flummoxed By America's Shoddy Road Infrastructure". The Huffington Post. N.p., 2016. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.
