It is way too early to worry about manually driving a car becoming illegal. For that to even be a possibility, self-driving cars will have to be perfected and then become completely ubiquitous. If that happens, I think it should be up to the society that exists at that point to decide whether manual driving should be banned (for example if self-driving cars are much safer by then).
Requiring cars to have wheels is also premature, because there are currently no cars that are safe to operate purely in self-driving mode with no backup driver, but once (if) there are fully self driving cars, people who can't manually drive will probably want to buy them. At this point, it initially may be necessary to at least disable the manually driving functionality in this case, if not outright remove the steering wheel, for safety (e.g when the car is being operated by children, people without licenses, seniors, etc.) and once this is possible it would be somewhat absurd for manual car aficionados to argue that simply making cars available in these configurations is somehow restricting people's freedoms.
Honestly, I suspect that 99% of drivers don't actually enjoy driving and will adopt self-driving cars as soon as they are inexpensively available, and in the long term removing the manual controls will probably provide more room for making self-driving cars more comfortable (making the seats recline like beds with a suitable safety harness, etc.).
>Honestly, I suspect that 99% of drivers don't actually enjoy driving and will adopt self-driving cars as soon as they are inexpensively available
I guess I am the 1%, then. Driving is one of the few activities where I can really clear my head. I support the goals of the Human Driving Association. I also disagree that it is too early, as many people already see it as inevitable that self-driving will be illegal.
>> When not do something entirely different altogether?
Gotta love HN. For the sake of being Captain Obvious: people who like moving at fast speeds probably won't get the same enjoyment out of moving at slow speeds.
As far as clearing the head goes, I heard from many people that they get into a kind of flow state while their hands have something to do while experiencing the effect of this activity. For some, it's playing the piano, listening to the sound, and getting lost in the thought. For others, it's operating a vehicle and seeing the lights whiz by. Different strokes for different folks, you know.
That is like saying "Hey I know you really love playing Tennis. That you enjoy the game, and how you feel when you play, and after the match. But we are going to outlaw Tennis, why don't you just go play Basketball instead? Mmmkay?"
>That is like saying "Hey I know you really love playing Tennis. That you enjoy the game, and how you feel when you play, and after the match. But we are going to outlaw Tennis, why don't you just go play Basketball instead? Mmmkay?"
Yeah sports aren't transportation infrastructure, and most forms of transportation infrastructure are perfectly useful to let people "clear their heads." This goes for walking as well as it does sitting on a bus or train. Just because the way the world is now put you in a habit of doing a thing doesn't mean the world needs to stand still so you can never have to change.
This is like saying "Riding horses is one of the few ways I can clear my head." Sure, if you really love it go to a paddock. But that's not what we're building our cities around anymore because "clearing your head" isn't really what we design people's commutes around.
Then go to a regulated track and drive to your heart's content? I don't like the idea of people just 'clearing their heads' while driving a 2 ton box at 65 miles per hour.
Ugh, what a stupid comment. Yeah sure, let me not only have 1 car, but now 2 cars, a trailer to legally transport the manual car. Then go on a boring as hell, flat, circle. This is not at all the same as say driving around a mountainous region, or along the coast. You can go fuck yourself with your regulated "track".
> Ugh, what a stupid comment. Yeah sure, let me not only have 1 carriage, but now a motorcar and a trailer to legally transport the horses and carriage. Then go on a boring as hell, flat, circle. This is not at all the same as say galloping around a mountainous region, or along the coast. You can go fuck yourself with your regulated "track".
Yeah, the expensive hobby isn't mandatory for everybody anymore, in fact it is banned on public roads, and the better alternative is readily available for people who don't want to shell out the cash for the quaint older method. What is the problem here?
Not "getting" driving for enjoyment is not the same as stupidity, and you (the supporters of the association's goals) will have to convince a lot of people who don't get it.
A track is a path (often enclosed) set aside solely for the purpose of driving[1] as opposed to transit between places. I'm surprised you haven't come across the concept, as it's been around for a _very_ long time.
[1] in this context: they're also used for horses, dogs, humans on foot etc). The
OK, what happens when a member of the Human Driving Association impacts a member of the I'm A Goddamned Pedestrian Stop Fucking Killing Me Association?
My idea is simple: If, in an era when self-driving cars are the norm, you choose to drive and you hit someone, that's it. It's First Degree/Premeditated Homicide if you killed them, or the highest possible degree of Aggravated Assault if you didn't. You did something deliberately contrary to the norm, which was significantly more dangerous to everyone else, and, as a direct result, you caused them death or permanent damage. You can't rely on the excuse of needing to drive yourself, as you can now, so the penalties go up proportionately.
I feel like the penalty should be similar to the penalty given for accidentally shooting someone with a firearm when hunting and killing them. Any idea what the penalty is for that?
> When a person unintentionally kills another, whether or not a gun was used, they can be charged with manslaughter, which is a felony. Manslaughter is frequently referred to as criminally negligent homicide, as that name more closely mirrors the elements of a manslaughter charge. To be found guilty of manslaughter, a person has to die as a result of a defendant's inherently dangerous actions or actions taken with reckless disregard.
> Typical penalties for a manslaughter conviction include at least one year in jail, and can be much worse if the conduct that led to the death merit such. For example, a repeat drunk driver that causes a death is likely to face a harsher sentence than a recently victimized elderly man who, instinctively, accidentally shoots someone they believe to be a robber.
And I say the penalties should be worse because cars would be less obviously dangerous than guns in an era when most cars are self-driving. In short, a gun is a gun, and people know what guns are. If someone is waving a firearm around, well, most people who have competent faculties know that that's dangerous. In the era I'm foreseeing, which I think is the era most of us in this thread are foreseeing, a car is no longer as inherently dangerous as they are now, unless someone has made the conscious choice to make it that dangerous again by driving it manually.
I also support greatly increased penalties for DUI, but that's going a bit afield.
Yea, there's really no arguments being made on this thread that don't apply just as directly to illegal street racing today, yet I'd be shocked if more than a minuscule fraction of the people in a Tiff on this thread would have the self-awareness and intellectual honesty to defend the right of street racers to kill innocent bystanders
If we reach a point where manual driving is clearly unsafe compared to self-driving cars, do you really think that manual driving should continue to be legal simply so that you can "clear your head"?
Anyway, barring a constitutional amendment, you can't pass a law now that will prevent a law banning manual driving from being passed in the future, so I think it's sort of a moot point.
Or driving can just be plain fun in itself. I enjoy driving unless it's more than ~3x (there and back) per week. I mean we control machines here, right? Cars are pretty interesting machines to control. I live in a big city so I don't need a car. I got one that is fun rather than useful. Small, light, quick to accelerate and around corners. The exact opposite of an SUV (what the hell is wrong with people...).
I expect you're going to see automation go a lot further in enhancing people's driving than you'll ever see robo-taxis be a viable primary mode of transporation.
So it's probably not necessary to worry about human drivers being illegal, but you might see cars without key safety features become illegal the same way seatbelts and airbags are required today.
So no more riding the shoulder, automated enforcement of traffic laws (so no speeding, no rolling stops, must yield at a yield sign, etc.).
Nah, this is a good time for people to be thinking about it. If you refuse to think about things that aren't 100% yet, you'll find yourself flatfooted and at a huge disadvantage to those who did.
Whether you're pro- or anti-driving, the debate is going to be carried out in public for years, not just after the technology is perfected. And likewise for whatever other sort of freedom-vs-safety issues that come up with technology.
You don't need to remove the steering wheel. An autonomous car can let any idiot driver (imagine your worse case bad driver here) drive safely. Want to weave in and out of traffic: no problem, the car won't let you hit any other car or go faster than is safe for that car.
I doubt that human driving will ever be outlawed. Riding horses isn't outlawed after all. What is likely is that automated driving will be required for major highways, just like how horses are banned from them now.
Yeah, in small isolated places I am sure it can work. But try taking a horse from Quincy, MA to Washing D.C. Like John Adams did many times. If self driving doesn't become "illegal" but regulated to small isolated areas (aka "tracks"), than you might as well just make it illegal. A lot of people who like driving won't be able to afford having a self driving car, and a manual driving car, a trailer so they can transport their manual driving car legally to the track. Not to mention, most tracks are boring, mostly flat, circles and not at all the same as driving on a mountainous road.
>But try taking a horse from Quincy, MA to Washing D.C. Like John Adams did many times.
I'd believe the impediment to that will be not the regulation, but lack of horse-support infrastructure along the way (inns with stables and feeding stations, blacksmiths who could reshoe your horse if needed, etc).
I highly doubt that the number horse-accessible roads has declined since John Adams times. We really have built a lot more roads since then, even allocating a small percentage to horses would be way more than was available back than.
TL;DR: John Adams didn't take the interstate either.
>I'd believe the impediment to that will be not the regulation, but lack of horse-support infrastructure along the way (inns with stables and feeding stations, blacksmiths who could reshoe your horse if needed, etc).
You're not wrong about this. But even if there was horse-supporting infrastructure along the way, riding a horse from Quincy to D.C. would still be way harder today, if not impossible. Just due to riding on the roads with cars, and find routes that aren't the interstate, or some major road where horse riding isn't allowed.
I've long thought that all highways/interstates should have paved bike path and a dirt trail away from the road itself. This would give people the option of riding horses or bikes in a much safer manner.
I think the biggest problem with this would be that you wouldn't want highway traffic crossing the bike/horse paths at grade, so I'm not sure that building bike/horse paths along (even if a bit away from) the highways would actually be efficient.
It might be better to simply require that equivalent paths be built somehow.
> want highway traffic crossing the bike/horse paths at grade
For the same sort of big vehicle vs small problems, look at all the problems with trains and car/truck crossings at grade. Spoiler, the train usually wins.
This would be an interesting premise for a sci-fi story: an Amish-like subculture in a far-future America, only their level of acceptable technology stopped at the early 21st century instead of the early 19th. So they drive everywhere in gas-powered cars when everyone else is teleporting, amuse themselves with movies recorded on disc when everyone else is immersed in holographic VR, talk to each other on cellphones when everyone else communicates telepathically via brain implants, etc.
Just to add another data point, in the UK it is perfectly legal to ride a horse (or horse drawn vehicle) on all roads except motorways. I expect similar laws exist in the rest of Europe. Due to the density of other roads it is possible to get about quite easily but I suppose this isn't the case for the USA which is larger and less dense.
I don't think we need to make human driving illegal. Rather, I think we should create a financial incentive _not_ to drive. Those who want to continue to drive cars can, but at a cost. Such a cost could be assuming all liability in the event of an accident with an autonomous vehicle. Under such a model, the human driver would always be at fault.
Or just let people drive if they like driving and hold them accountable, just like we do today. For those that don't like driving, create better options for them and let them fund it.
My friend is dead. The killer got 7 months in jail... I'm not okay with anyone driving - including me. I don't see any currently feasible alternatives though. (buses and trains still have drivers)
Speaking as an engine mechanic by trade and a python programmer for hobby, im not sure how i feel about more electronics in cars just yet. However, some of them are just objectively meaningless.
-Soundaktor. this is a tiny plastic speaker mounted in the footwell of most Volkswagen cars thats designed to make fake engine noises. The idea being, if the car sounds aggressive, people will enjoy it. Ford uses these as well, and if they die they will trigger an ODB code and a trip to the dealership to fix/replace.
- engine auto-off/on. This is a feature that originally showed up on Mercedes trucks to prevent drivers from idling in docks or streets. They extended it to their luxury cars, and now most high end cars to this. The idea being that if you stop at a red light, the engine shuts off to "save gas." The only thing this feature does is halve the life of your starter motor and battery.
Isn't auto one-off to save a few grams of average CO2 emissions on paper to save the customer some tax money in countries where CO2 emissions are the base for taxation?
I was planning to write a cyberpunk dystopian short story which the nation banned all non-autonomous vehicles (basically, mega-corporations like Waymo and Uber have lobbied the government and spun the media with keywords such as 'safety' and 'efficiency'). But then there is a rag-tag group of people (car enthusiasts and motorcyclers) who demand the right to driving: to feel the winds and speed flowing over their shoulders as they indulge in the absolute freedom of movement. So they occasionally drive secretly and illegally, out of the eyes of the cameras of Waymo. The story starts with a chase scene with the Google police cars, which are also 100% autonomous. The rebels have managed to fake them by camouflaging their vehicles, but the police are now using special sonar technology which augments their camera vision. (And then one of the rebels know how to hack inside the autonomous-driving deep learning system, and then yadda yadda...)
But now this fucking "right to drive" thing is actually becoming a fucking reality. The future is, simply cyberpunk. Help me, I'm getting headaches.
Would your story also include incidents where innocent people are maimed or killed in accidents caused by those "rebels" while they were "feeling the winds and speed flowing over their shoulders..."?
Cars are the second largest expense for most people with the cost of the car, cost of maintenance, registration, insurance, parking, etc. coming only behind their residence in terms of cost.
Manually driven cars are a wasteful luxury that kill over a million people per year. I can't wait until they go away.
> The average car utilization is less than 4.5%. For over 95% of the time, most cars are just sitting there doing nothing.
This is roughly true of bikes as well, but I've never seen it used as an argument against cycling.
There is one important difference: Bikes are much smaller than cars so they take up less space when parked. But I haven't seen that mentioned in this context.
I'm a bike commuter too, but I stay on dedicated bike paths whenever possible, which is about 90% of my commute. I don't have a way of measuring it, but my intuition says that my chance of death while cycling on a dedicated bike path is much less than if I were driving a car on the road.
I do realize I'm pretty lucky to be in that situation, but for safety reasons I'm a big fan of generally having more dedicated bike paths or at least barrier-separated bike lanes around town. In a lot of Asian and European cities it is pretty standard and it massively improves safety.
Like the sibling comment, I'm a frequent bicycle commuter. I have deep reservations about car culture. But I'm strongly in favor of continuing to allow manual operation for motor vehicles. My fear is that, in a fully self-driving world, cyclists will be banned from city streets or forced to carry transponders "for our own safety". This shrinks your individual autonomy to "places you can walk safely" and places way too much faith in automated systems.
To be honest, I'd buy a transponder if it meant self-driving cars couldn't hit me as a cyclist. I'd strongly oppose transponder requirements and cycling bans.
My impression from self-driving car advocates is that they are okay with cycling, e.g., see here:
I actually don't think it is dystopian. Today, you cannot ride a horse on most public roads in the car lanes. For those that like to ride horses, there are now parks for you to do that in.
The same thing will happen with autonomous cars. When the roads are fully autonomous the cars will be going maybe twice as fast as they are now, and much safer at the same time. For people who love driving manually for fun, there will be "auto parks" just like the horse parks of today.
Try getting out in the country a little on a weekend and you will discover that horses are common on roads. By little I meant distance: far enough that you can own enough land for a horse, close enough that you can get into the city for a real job. (Horses are expensive to own, farmers generally find ATVs work better)
There are horse parks as well. Some people ride their bike on the road for fun (not to be confused with those who ride for some other purpose), some people ride trails for fun.
If the self-driving vehicles are also tied into a common communication and planning system, so that all the self-driving vehicles in an area coordinate with each other, such a system could be designed to accommodate people who want to take manual control.
Suppose, say, you and a friend would like to do some street racing against each other. You could tell the system, and it could make some minor adjustments to traffic timing to clear a course for you and your friend to race on, and then switch your cars to manual control. (Actually, it wouldn't have to clear your whole course. It really just needs a buffer around your cars).
During the race, the self-driving system in your cars could monitor your driving, and take over if you are starting to lose control, where "lose control" is defined as put the car in a state that the self-driving system cannot safely stop from.
If the self-driving systems are good enough that they are better at extreme driving than you are, then you'd be able to push your limits in manual mode, because the self-driving system would only have to intervene if you've pushed beyond your skill level and would be heading for a crash.
If you take away the steering and brakes, there is no way to clear a dead car out of traffic so everyone else can get on with their lives. Take those away and your car is suddenly blocking me because the power system shit the bed, I’m gonna be considering violence very shortly.
So reading through their website... I’m not convinced that this is a real movement. Due to the layout, the prominence of the store part, etc, it really feels more like it’s a web store that has struck upon trendy marketing in the guise of fighting for the right to drive.
71 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadRequiring cars to have wheels is also premature, because there are currently no cars that are safe to operate purely in self-driving mode with no backup driver, but once (if) there are fully self driving cars, people who can't manually drive will probably want to buy them. At this point, it initially may be necessary to at least disable the manually driving functionality in this case, if not outright remove the steering wheel, for safety (e.g when the car is being operated by children, people without licenses, seniors, etc.) and once this is possible it would be somewhat absurd for manual car aficionados to argue that simply making cars available in these configurations is somehow restricting people's freedoms.
Honestly, I suspect that 99% of drivers don't actually enjoy driving and will adopt self-driving cars as soon as they are inexpensively available, and in the long term removing the manual controls will probably provide more room for making self-driving cars more comfortable (making the seats recline like beds with a suitable safety harness, etc.).
I guess I am the 1%, then. Driving is one of the few activities where I can really clear my head. I support the goals of the Human Driving Association. I also disagree that it is too early, as many people already see it as inevitable that self-driving will be illegal.
Why not just take a walk?
>> When not do something entirely different altogether?
Gotta love HN. For the sake of being Captain Obvious: people who like moving at fast speeds probably won't get the same enjoyment out of moving at slow speeds.
As far as clearing the head goes, I heard from many people that they get into a kind of flow state while their hands have something to do while experiencing the effect of this activity. For some, it's playing the piano, listening to the sound, and getting lost in the thought. For others, it's operating a vehicle and seeing the lights whiz by. Different strokes for different folks, you know.
Yeah sports aren't transportation infrastructure, and most forms of transportation infrastructure are perfectly useful to let people "clear their heads." This goes for walking as well as it does sitting on a bus or train. Just because the way the world is now put you in a habit of doing a thing doesn't mean the world needs to stand still so you can never have to change.
This is like saying "Riding horses is one of the few ways I can clear my head." Sure, if you really love it go to a paddock. But that's not what we're building our cities around anymore because "clearing your head" isn't really what we design people's commutes around.
Ugh, what a stupid comment. Yeah sure, let me not only have 1 car, but now 2 cars, a trailer to legally transport the manual car. Then go on a boring as hell, flat, circle. This is not at all the same as say driving around a mountainous region, or along the coast. You can go fuck yourself with your regulated "track".
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is not a good approach.
You mean like roads and highways?
[1] in this context: they're also used for horses, dogs, humans on foot etc). The
My idea is simple: If, in an era when self-driving cars are the norm, you choose to drive and you hit someone, that's it. It's First Degree/Premeditated Homicide if you killed them, or the highest possible degree of Aggravated Assault if you didn't. You did something deliberately contrary to the norm, which was significantly more dangerous to everyone else, and, as a direct result, you caused them death or permanent damage. You can't rely on the excuse of needing to drive yourself, as you can now, so the penalties go up proportionately.
> When a person unintentionally kills another, whether or not a gun was used, they can be charged with manslaughter, which is a felony. Manslaughter is frequently referred to as criminally negligent homicide, as that name more closely mirrors the elements of a manslaughter charge. To be found guilty of manslaughter, a person has to die as a result of a defendant's inherently dangerous actions or actions taken with reckless disregard.
> Typical penalties for a manslaughter conviction include at least one year in jail, and can be much worse if the conduct that led to the death merit such. For example, a repeat drunk driver that causes a death is likely to face a harsher sentence than a recently victimized elderly man who, instinctively, accidentally shoots someone they believe to be a robber.
And I say the penalties should be worse because cars would be less obviously dangerous than guns in an era when most cars are self-driving. In short, a gun is a gun, and people know what guns are. If someone is waving a firearm around, well, most people who have competent faculties know that that's dangerous. In the era I'm foreseeing, which I think is the era most of us in this thread are foreseeing, a car is no longer as inherently dangerous as they are now, unless someone has made the conscious choice to make it that dangerous again by driving it manually.
I also support greatly increased penalties for DUI, but that's going a bit afield.
Anyway, barring a constitutional amendment, you can't pass a law now that will prevent a law banning manual driving from being passed in the future, so I think it's sort of a moot point.
So it's probably not necessary to worry about human drivers being illegal, but you might see cars without key safety features become illegal the same way seatbelts and airbags are required today.
So no more riding the shoulder, automated enforcement of traffic laws (so no speeding, no rolling stops, must yield at a yield sign, etc.).
Whether you're pro- or anti-driving, the debate is going to be carried out in public for years, not just after the technology is perfected. And likewise for whatever other sort of freedom-vs-safety issues that come up with technology.
It is on major roads, which makes it impossible/impractical to use horse a legit mode of transportation.
I'd believe the impediment to that will be not the regulation, but lack of horse-support infrastructure along the way (inns with stables and feeding stations, blacksmiths who could reshoe your horse if needed, etc).
I highly doubt that the number horse-accessible roads has declined since John Adams times. We really have built a lot more roads since then, even allocating a small percentage to horses would be way more than was available back than.
TL;DR: John Adams didn't take the interstate either.
You're not wrong about this. But even if there was horse-supporting infrastructure along the way, riding a horse from Quincy to D.C. would still be way harder today, if not impossible. Just due to riding on the roads with cars, and find routes that aren't the interstate, or some major road where horse riding isn't allowed.
It might be better to simply require that equivalent paths be built somehow.
For the same sort of big vehicle vs small problems, look at all the problems with trains and car/truck crossings at grade. Spoiler, the train usually wins.
-Soundaktor. this is a tiny plastic speaker mounted in the footwell of most Volkswagen cars thats designed to make fake engine noises. The idea being, if the car sounds aggressive, people will enjoy it. Ford uses these as well, and if they die they will trigger an ODB code and a trip to the dealership to fix/replace.
- engine auto-off/on. This is a feature that originally showed up on Mercedes trucks to prevent drivers from idling in docks or streets. They extended it to their luxury cars, and now most high end cars to this. The idea being that if you stop at a red light, the engine shuts off to "save gas." The only thing this feature does is halve the life of your starter motor and battery.
But now this fucking "right to drive" thing is actually becoming a fucking reality. The future is, simply cyberpunk. Help me, I'm getting headaches.
1.25 million people die per year from auto accidents in the world with as many as 20-50 million additional people injured or disabled.
Source: https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/
The average car utilization is less than 4.5%. For over 95% of the time, most cars are just sitting there doing nothing.
Source: https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/02/cars-are-parked-9...
Cars are the second largest expense for most people with the cost of the car, cost of maintenance, registration, insurance, parking, etc. coming only behind their residence in terms of cost.
Manually driven cars are a wasteful luxury that kill over a million people per year. I can't wait until they go away.
This is roughly true of bikes as well, but I've never seen it used as an argument against cycling.
There is one important difference: Bikes are much smaller than cars so they take up less space when parked. But I haven't seen that mentioned in this context.
I am a cyclist for what it's worth.
I do realize I'm pretty lucky to be in that situation, but for safety reasons I'm a big fan of generally having more dedicated bike paths or at least barrier-separated bike lanes around town. In a lot of Asian and European cities it is pretty standard and it massively improves safety.
My impression from self-driving car advocates is that they are okay with cycling, e.g., see here:
https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/
> Cities shall prioritize walking, cycling, public transport and other efficient shared mobility
The same thing will happen with autonomous cars. When the roads are fully autonomous the cars will be going maybe twice as fast as they are now, and much safer at the same time. For people who love driving manually for fun, there will be "auto parks" just like the horse parks of today.
There are horse parks as well. Some people ride their bike on the road for fun (not to be confused with those who ride for some other purpose), some people ride trails for fun.
http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/transcripts/19731100roadand...
That anticipates the experience every Prius owner encounters once in a while from lifted pickups.
Fortyfive years ago.
Suppose, say, you and a friend would like to do some street racing against each other. You could tell the system, and it could make some minor adjustments to traffic timing to clear a course for you and your friend to race on, and then switch your cars to manual control. (Actually, it wouldn't have to clear your whole course. It really just needs a buffer around your cars).
During the race, the self-driving system in your cars could monitor your driving, and take over if you are starting to lose control, where "lose control" is defined as put the car in a state that the self-driving system cannot safely stop from.
If the self-driving systems are good enough that they are better at extreme driving than you are, then you'd be able to push your limits in manual mode, because the self-driving system would only have to intervene if you've pushed beyond your skill level and would be heading for a crash.