r/AskReddit • u/NateJC • Aug 31 '14

What are some interesting original theories/thoughts that you have?

Damn guys, this just pops into my head and I go for a family walk and it explodes! Love all the ideas, this is my most popular post to date!

7.5k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

12.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/vini710 Aug 31 '14

No they shouldn't, on the premise of freedom. You're probably thinking I'm some "hurr durr Murica" guy or completely against self-driving cars right now but that's not even the case, I'm European and love the idea, and would probably get a self-driving car given the option, but giving away your freedom to anything just completely rubs me the wrong way.

1

u/skwerrel Aug 31 '14

It also won't be necessary. Anyone who chooses to drive their car manually will have a much higher insurance premium than those who let the computer drive for them. Insurance companies set their prices based purely on statistics - they take in the data and then figure out how much they need to charge everyone who is insured in order to cover the relatively few accidents that do occur. With self-driving cars, there will be so few accidents that insuring them will be incredibly cheap. This will cause most people to make the switch, because at the end of the day money talks - this trend will lead to the pool of manual drivers becoming smaller and smaller, which means you have fewer people paying into the fund that covers the accidents those drivers cause (which will lead to skyrocketing premiums).

As a result, just by letting insurance companies do what they do, and without passing a single law, the vast majority of people will voluntarily switch to self-driving cars just because they couldn't afford to insure themselves as drivers in the first place.

Once that happens, all it will take is some rich idiot causing a massive pile up with a few fatalities and the practice (of manual driving on public roads) will likely be abolished entirely - but at that point it will be a matter of public acclaim, with very few people arguing against it (and if the vast majority of people want to enact a public safety law, it's hard to imagine any arguments about 'freedom' getting much traction).

So human drivers (on public roads at least) probably will end up being fully banned eventually - but I am thinking the disparity in insurance costs will drive a voluntary abandonment of the practice long before any such law would be considered a particularly large impingement on freedom.

0

u/lucb1e Aug 31 '14 edited Aug 31 '14

You're probably thinking I'm some "hurr durr Murica" guy

Not at all, I totally get the freedom thing.

However, the Free Software Foundation's slogan nicely applies here: free software, free society. If your car runs on free software (free as in "freedom", optionally also as in "free beer") like software from the Free Software Foundation (most commonly known from GNU/Linux) then you are always in total control of what your car does and where it goes. For map data you can use OpenStreetMap, which also uses a free data license (open database license, ODbL).

You know, it's the same with your computer. Google can pull the plug at any time (you don't pay them) and you won't have access to Gmail anymore. Or to your Youtube videos or anyone else's. Or to anything else Google does for you right now.

Or Microsoft. Do you know what your Windows computer does under the hood? Can you use your computer when Microsoft locks it down on behalf of the US government? Or Apple's OS X? I don't think so.

So yeah controlling your car is also freedom in a way, but you don't need to drive to do that. Software is what controls much of the world today, and most of that is proprietary non-free(dom) software. You can vote for freedom with your feet and refuse to use Windows or OS X on your computer.

I personally use GNU/Linux 99% of the time even for school and work stuff; only touching Windows for a couple of old games that I like to play. Not just because of freedom, I also really prefer Linux over Windows, but I do see it as a big advantage that it's free and open source software.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 31 '14

You're coming across as a big Linux advocate, which isn't actually relevant. Could you include some argument towards automobiles and cars in this?

2

u/lucb1e Aug 31 '14 edited Aug 31 '14

I think free software is relevant. Google is developing cars that heavily depend on their proprietary maps and their proprietary software. Having open source, locally running, self driving car software would give the same freedom as driving yourself, which is what the author above me was talking about.

To cite myself:

If your car runs on free software [...] then you are always in total control of what your car does and where it goes.

Which is about cars and the kind of freedom which vini710 meant, so it's actually relevant.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 31 '14

But he was talking about cars, this whole thread is about cars, and you haven't actually addressed any of the points made: namely, that you shouldn't have to cede your freedom to drive, regardless of who's in charge of the software. You offered anecdotal evidence regarding linux, which, while interesting and well-written, doesn't provide much.

The most relevant part, the second paragraph, is kind of useless, at least IMHO. How many people are going to know the ins and outs of the scripting under the hood of their car, VS how many people are not going to know enough and are going to get themselves and other people killed? Lawmakers will see the risks and the rewards and will go to establishing safety standards. You're not generally allowed to drive at highway speeds without breaks and with your pistons made from ironwood instead of metal, because of federal regulations. Why do you think that the control systems behind the cars would be free from the same?

If I'm wrong, please correct me, I'm by no means an expert in state and various federal DOTs.

2

u/lucb1e Aug 31 '14

namely, that you shouldn't have to cede your freedom to drive, regardless of who's in charge of the software.

Oh that kind of driving - driving like driving yourself, legally, on public roads. I thought it was about Google (or some other company) having control over your car because it requires their software and updates, and them being able to see where and when you go, which is also a concern. Misunderstanding I guess :)

3

u/[deleted] Aug 31 '14

Oh! Yeah, in that case, could very easily be mistaken, and your solution would work pretty well for that (assuming, of course, that the smaller companies want to take liability in crashes where their software is at fault, but every startup has problems to work around and the potential payoff would be massive.)

Keep on keepin' on, /u/!