Senseless Traffic Deaths are Heartbreaking, But There is Hope

Human error currently accounts for 90 percent of road "accidents". Imagine the benefits of removing humans from the driving equation altogether!

By Matt Pinder
Published October 29, 2015

I have a friend who will remain unnamed but who drives like an absolute maniac. This friend puts the pedal to the floor at every opportunity to accelerate, whether it's riding another car's bumper on the highway or tailgating a cyclist on a narrow residential street. As a passenger, all I can do is helplessly cling to whatever I can find and pray that everything will be okay.

I'm probably not the only one who knows someone like this. For every hundred drivers on the road, there will always be that one who drives without any sense of rational thought. Somehow, driver safety training and awareness does not seem to impact these people.

Last week's tragic death of a four-year-old girl in Markham is a stark reminder of what can happen when a child's unpredictable actions and an irrational driver meet on a residential street.

And just yesterday we were reminded again of the unpredictable nature of human drivers when a southbound driver on highway 404 veered across the centre median and crashed head-on into a northbound car on the other side of the highway, claiming three victims.

Yet there is hope for a brighter, safer future. The transportation sector is on the verge of disruption on a scale that has not been seen since the advent of the automobile at the beginning of the last century - the rise of autonomous vehicles.

Two weeks ago, drivers were in awe when Tesla released an update for its vehicles enabling them to perform semi-autonomous functions including speed adjustment, lane change, and parallel parking.

While today these features are seen as "bells and whistles" more than anything, we are not far from a time when cars are able to fully drive themselves, eliminating the need for a human to operate a vehicle.

So how does this impact safety? Machines are perfectly rational and capable of exactly following a set of rules assigned to them. Hundreds of times per second, autonomous vehicles scan their surroundings using a vast array of sensors for any sign of externalities that might require quick action. They accelerate at reasonable speeds, and always obey the assigned speed limit.

Autonomous cars can also be connected to one another, enabling all cars on the road to act as a network, warning of obstacles and communicating so that no two cars will ever attempt to claim the same road space.

It is estimated that in the United States, 300,000 lives could be saved in a decade by eliminating collisions caused by human mistakes. Imagine if communities never again have to endure the pain and suffering caused by the death of an innocent child running across a road, or the bitterness and resentment caused by a selfish drunk driver who claims the lives of innocents.

Unfortunately, those drivers who thoroughly enjoy the rush of driving recklessly may be the last people to surrender control of the wheel. However, I am confident that a day will come where autonomous vehicles will no longer be seen simply as a nice-to-have but rather as a fundamental ingredient to making our roads safer for everyone.

This article was first published on Matt Pinder's website on October 28, 2015.

Matt Pinder is a cyclist, driver, transit user, and proud graduate from McMaster University. Currently working as a transportation researcher, he is passionate about the future of mobility.


View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By ergopepsi (registered) | Posted October 29, 2015 at 10:41:17

The provincial government has approved testing of AV's in Ontario as of January 2016. One of the largest technical hurdles they have currently is operating in snow as it tends to report a lot of false positives to the sensors. Hopefully a few winters in Ontario will help them figure that one out.

I hope the day will come when I can commute to work in one of these vehicles. I'd like to think I'd be catching up on work on my laptop but the reality is I'd probably be napping. Therefore I suggest a built in wakey-wakey alarm connected to the horn!

Imagine a law where instead of losing your license for reckless driving you just lose your ability to manually control the vehicle. So many possibilities.

Comment edited by ergopepsi on 2015-10-29 10:43:07

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted October 29, 2015 at 11:23:42

12 pedestrian injuries in Toronto yesterday alone.

Permalink | Context

By JasonL (registered) | Posted October 29, 2015 at 22:08:37 in reply to Comment 114427

can't stand the social media comments from news agencies yesterday saying '12 pedestrians struck in Toronto today, due partly to weather'. No, it's not due to weather. People drove their cars into them. They weren't struck by lightning.
I've driven in absolutely crazy storms and weather conditions over the years, being an amateur weather freak. I've never once crashed into anything in the worst weather conditions we ever experience.
It's human error 99% of the time. I leave a 1% margin for those random times where someone is driving very safely but unexpectedly hits black ice and spins out.
Other than that, I can't think of a weather condition that can't be managed with safe driving.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TheXGuy (registered) | Posted October 29, 2015 at 12:02:16

I, for one, welcome our new autonomous vehicle overlords :)

I agree that in the long term once the majority of vehicles are fitted with this technology, and once its perfected (if it can ever be perfected?) collisions of all types should be reduced – the potential is there. I think the one true benefit of this technology is for the automatic adherence to the speed limit of whatever neighbourhood the vehicle is in.

However, there could be a short term, temporary bump in the road as more and more autonomous vehicles are introduced, similar to what we would see on a positive-skewed bell curve, with the "rule abiding" cars conflicting with human drivers and their poor habits. Could collisions and injures actually spike during this (hopefully short) period?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonTransitHistory (registered) - website | Posted October 29, 2015 at 14:26:29

Other benefits of Self-driving Cars (SDC):

-walking and cycling become much safer

-buses and emergency vehicles become much faster because the SDCs are programmed to get out of the way. As well, SDBuses make the HSR cheaper to operate. (Some large cities may see their transit systems turning a profit)

Comment edited by HamiltonTransitHistory on 2015-10-29 14:30:24

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted October 29, 2015 at 14:38:32 in reply to Comment 114436

Maybe no need for buses (or LRT.) The technology that applies to cars applies to buses and trains and trucks and planes. If there were hundreds of smaller public self-driving buses we would not need big buses.

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted October 31, 2015 at 23:34:55 in reply to Comment 114438

Self-driving cars will be extremely useful but it'll simply be a Uber-style connection to public transit for a lot of people.

GO ran a DIAL-A-BUS service in the 1970s

We need Level 4 self-driving capability; ones legally certified to drive your kids unattended safely in the middle of a snowstorm; that may be a while yet.

Level 4 Self-driving cars would behave as automated taxis/ubers/zipcars/Hertz (no difference between them if they're auto-chauffering). Given a sufficiently large fleet roaming the city, they can automatically take a great best-fit route through the suburbs, scooping up a few people to take to the nearest rapid transit stop (subway, LRT, regional train, etc). It could cost the same as a bus fare or less, and if municipally operated, the transfer could be free.

This would be the best efficiency of roads; see Ryan's image why long-distance point A-to-B will still clog the roads. A freeway lane only carries about 2,000 cars per hour (tailgating less than 2 seconds -- only 3,600 seconds in 1 hour). A single GO train has as many seats as one freeway-lane-hour worth of traffic -- the 8 peak period Lakeshore West GO trains (timetabled 4:45 thru 5:45pm) carries as many people as the entire 401 width passing one point for the whole 1 hour. Even if you do some computerized platooning (automated safe tailgating) it would only increase road capacity to a certain point, and then still clog well below a 3-vehicle 15-segment LRT (e.g. 15,000 people per hour).

You just can't transpot a whole city's population using sole-occupant vehicles, during peak hour -- it just cannot be done clogging the roads. Doesn't matter if there is a driver or not.

I am looking forward to driverless cars, whether as an owner or a hailer (e.g. hailing a ZipCar (or Community CarShare) to come to me, Uber-style)

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2015-10-31 23:38:26

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 29, 2015 at 14:52:10 in reply to Comment 114438

On high-volume corridors with limited right-of-way, a full transit vehicle will beat a bunch of cars every time in terms of space efficiency.

Bus vs bikes vs cars space on road

And that's doubly or triply the case with an LRT vehicle.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted November 04, 2015 at 02:32:41 in reply to Comment 114442

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted November 05, 2015 at 15:24:47 in reply to Comment 114600

This is arguably true offpeak but the most important is PEAK HOUR.

During PEAK HOUR, both roads AND buses are often FULL...

The occupants per car is still below 2 by average measurements, so while there's some fudge, the pictures are pretty accurate representation (within ~50%) of the most important hour, PEAK HOUR.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2015-11-05 16:27:18

Permalink | Context

By JasonL (registered) | Posted October 29, 2015 at 22:11:46 in reply to Comment 114442

saw this on twitter yesterday:

Many Hamilton city councillors would see that pic and complain that the buses are holding up those 3 people in cars. Everyone else on the planet sees a street network that desperately needs LRT along with transit-only lanes so we don' risk 3 people in their vehicles holding up 300+ people in their 5 vehicles.

Comment edited by JasonL on 2015-10-29 22:12:26

Permalink | Context

By HamiltonTransitHistory (registered) - website | Posted October 29, 2015 at 15:08:55 in reply to Comment 114442

Also, it looks like the SDB will be here faster than the SDC.

Permalink | Context

By ergopepsi (registered) | Posted October 29, 2015 at 16:27:27 in reply to Comment 114447

Greece already has driverless buses. Also, Elon Musk is working on something called the Hyperloop which would also be completely automated.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted October 29, 2015 at 20:32:44

Human error currently accounts for 90 percent of road "accidents".

In which case, human error currently accounts for 15.2% of road deaths in Hamilton.


The 10-year average for motor vehicle drivers crushing and killing people is 19 people per year crushed and killed by car drivers.

90% of those deaths being due to human error is 17 deaths, rounding to the nearest dead body.

An additional 93 people are poisoned and killed by motor vehicle drivers in Hamilton every year.. Zero of those deaths are due to human error.

Total people killed in Hamilton each year by motor vehicle drivers: 19 + 93 = 112

Total deaths due to human error: 17

17/112 = 15.2%

Or, in other words, 84.8% of road deaths will be totally unaffected by driverless cars.

Permalink | Context

By Really (anonymous) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 06:23:47 in reply to Comment 114451

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 30, 2015 at 08:07:45 in reply to Comment 114459

Um, no, it is not "one opinion" - and not even just the opinion of the Medical Officer of Health, whose opinions should at least be taken more seriously than an anonymous online commenter.

According to the Province of Ontario, 850 people die prematurely each year in the GTHA on a population of 6 million, for an annual premature death rate of 14.167 per 100,000. If we apply that ratio to Hamilton's population of 530,000, we get 75 premature deaths a year in Hamilton.

For a more local source of data, Clean Air Hamilton's 2013 Annual Report notes:

It is estimated that the six key air pollutants - nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ground-level ozone (O3), inhalable particulate matter (PM10), respirable particulate matter (PM2.5), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) - contribute to about 186 premature deaths, 395 respiratory hospital admissions and 322 cardiovascular hospital admissions each year in Hamilton.

According to the report, automobile emissions "accounts for approximately 4% of local generated greenhouse gas emissions and 50% of air pollutants". 50% of 186 is 93.

Not just an opinion. Sorry that the evidence does not support your ostrich-head-in-sand approach to the toxic air pollution that we know is coming out of vehicle tailpipes.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 13:20:22 in reply to Comment 114462

Those premature deaths are disproportionately the deaths of children. I’ll repost the link this evening.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 20:54:14 in reply to Comment 114496

Here's the link, to Toronto Public Health on the official City of Toronto website:

An excerpt from page 6:

"Children are particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of traffic given their immature physiology and immune system which are still under development. Furthermore, children breathe more per unit body weight than adults. In addition, children tend to spend more time outdoors, engaged in strenuous play or physical activity, resulting in greater exposure to air pollution than adults."

From page 10:

"An Italian study which modeled benzene concentrations (based on traffic density) found a nearly four-fold increase in the risk of childhood leukemia in the highest exposure group (Crosignani et al. 2004). An ecological study in Sweden (Nordlinger and Jarvholm. 1997) and a UK study of children residing close to main roads and petrol stations (Harrison et al. 1999) provide further support for this association."

From page 11:

"There is emerging evidence that vehicle-related emissions are associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Several studies have reported an association with low birth weight in infants and maternal exposure to emissions during pregnancy (Bell et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2003; Salam et al. 2005; Sram et al. 2005; Wilhelm and Ritz. 2005). It has also been suggested that there is an association with preterm births and intrauterine growth retardation, but these studies are less consistent (Ponce et al. 2005; Sram et al. 2005). Finally, there have been a few suggestions of an increased risk in these infants of sudden infant death syndrome and birth defects like congenital heart defects but further research is needed to confirm these findings (Dales et al. 2004; Ritz et al. 2002; Sram et al. 2005).

As has been discussed, prenatal and early exposure to traffic-related pollution has a significant impact on the health of the fetus and infant, but it can also predispose them to a range of other illnesses. Adverse birth outcomes like low birth weight have been linked to the development of chronic illnesses later in life like cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lower cognitive function, and increased cancer risk (Perera et al. 2005; Perera et al. 2006)."

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2015-10-30 21:03:48

Permalink | Context

By TheXGuy (registered) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 11:09:20 in reply to Comment 114462

I’m not arguing all the negatives that come with car emissions, but I think it's the choice of language and tone of his description when referencing links in this article, and many others, that may irate some posters. When stating what/who is responsible for air emissions, "poisoning", should there be a difference between the car, and the driver that chooses to operate it?
It just comes across to me that he has a personal hatred of people that choose to operator any type of motorized vehicle.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 09:30:25 in reply to Comment 114462

Is there really a scientific way to distinguish who, amongst all the people who die from respiratory ailments, are directly and specifically linked to one form of pollution v. another, to one particular human induced hazard v. another, to genetic fallibility v. environment exposure etc. etc.?

If a person smokes and lives in an environment where there is no cars, will he really live longer?

There are specific hazards, asbestos to those who are genetically per-disposed to mesothelioma, peanuts to people who suffer peanut allergies, and such where elimination of the hazard have a direct link to life expectancy. Is that true in the same way for pollution from auto's as opposed to say fireplaces, factories or the other 96% of things that contribute to air pollution?

In other words, it it fair to say that if you eliminated automobiles completely, there would be a reduction in deaths by 4%? And if so, what does that mean?

If building and using automobiles has increased life expectancy by,say, 20 years since 1900 with its contribution to industrialization, would eliminating it increase life expectancy further?

I can see that replacing carbon based transportation with non-carbon based transportation would have the dual benefit of meeting the needs of private transportation and encouraging human development.

Is it as simple as saying that because cars contribute 4% to air pollution that 4% of deaths from respiratory ailments are the result of cars or is it a far more complex algorithm?

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2015-10-30 09:33:20

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 10:08:29 in reply to Comment 114469

Actually the statistical techniques to prove this were perfected in the 1990s, when statisticians were able to clearly estimate the number of excess deaths due to peak air pollution events and average pollution in large urban centres (and this air pollution is primarily due to motor vehicles). The epidemiological statistics around air pollution is well established now.

For example, even this UN report from 1995 which focuses on developing countries emphasized the excess deaths from air pollution due to motor vehicles:

"Owing to their rapidly increasing numbers and very limited use of emission control technologies, motor vehicles are emerging as the largest source of urban air pollution in the developing world."

"Epidemiological studies show that air pollution in developing countries accounts for tens of thousands of excess deaths and billions of dollars in medical costs and lost productivity every year. "

As the Clean Air Hamilton report states, even in Hamilton it is estimated that 50% of air pollution is due to motor vehicles (4% is GHG, not air pollution). Brian McCarry from McMaster used a mobile air pollution monitoring van to measure relative pollution in various areas around the city. He found that the most polluted area is actually with 200m of the 403 going up the Chedoke hill to Ancaster. In general, the most polluted place is inside your car on a freeway.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 30, 2015 at 09:38:48 in reply to Comment 114469

The fact that you keep changing your argument to try and preserve your thesis should be a red flag that your commitment to that thesis is not based on evidence and analysis.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 10:23:45 in reply to Comment 114470

??? I did not make an argument and certainly didn't change it. I asked two things one of which has been answered and I see my error about 4% v. 50%.

One question was does (now) 50% of air pollution contribute to 4% of deaths and the answer is probably (statistically) yes.

The other question is in two parts. One is, is overall life expectancy improved based on the elimination of automobiles. The other is what if carbon emissions are eliminated from automobiles.

The answer to the second is I think obviously yes - but I stand to hear why is would be no. The answer to the first is . . .

I have a hunch that the overall improvement of life expectancy based on the presence of the automobile far outweighs the 4% death rate. But as as I suggested, I bet the algorithm is spectacularly complicated.

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2015-10-30 10:26:15

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted October 29, 2015 at 20:41:33

Imagine the benefits of removing humans from the driving equation altogether!

How about imagining the benefits of removing cars from the urban equation altogether?

The way Venice does. Or Hamburg is planning to. Or downtown Utrecht has since 1965. Or how Toronto shows it doesn't have to be downtown.

They did it. We can too.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 09:18:56 in reply to Comment 114452

"How about imagining the benefits of removing cars from the urban equation altogether?"

I thought you guys weren't anti car warriors/crusaders? At least you are showing your true colours.

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2015-10-30 09:32:00

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 13:04:28 in reply to Comment 114467

I am not anti-car. I am anti-cancer. I am anti-heart disease, anti-obesity and anti-diabetes. I am anti children, elderly and disabled people being terrorized off the street.

I am pro-health, pro-childhood freedom, and definitely support a prosperous, vibrant and liveable city for all people of all ages. There are many cities and entire countries around the world who have made positive, healthy changes to achieve this.

They changed. We can too.

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 14:09:58 in reply to Comment 114492

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By Crusty (anonymous) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 14:21:40 in reply to Comment 114499

What you are is a defensive sophist who really wants to change the subject away from the FACT that cars emit pollution that kills people indiscriminately.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 30, 2015 at 12:57:00

Timely anecdote: an Uber driver was operating a Tesla Model S at around 45 mph with the new autopilot feature turned on when an oncoming car turned right in front of him. The car came to a complete stop all by itself before he had time to hit the horn or the brake, preventing a potentially fatal head-on collision. You can watch the dashcam video.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted October 31, 2015 at 23:44:29

Useful information about NTHSA self driving capability levels

Level 0 -- Your old manual-shift car

Level 1 -- Your newer car with cruise control.

Level 2 -- That fancy car with automatic lanekeeping and adaptive cruise.

Level 3 -- You can safely text behind the wheel, but must intervene in an alarm.

Level 4 -- It can self-valet empty. It also can drive your kids unaccompanied to hockey practice in the middle of a snowstorm.

Tesla Autopilot is nearly Level 3; although legally it must be treated as Level 2 with full attention mandatory, and working/surfing/texting still not allowed. Eventually we may reach a point where Level 3 self-driving vehicle drivers are legally allowed to do light (interruptible) work like reading, watching movies, texting, etc, but must mandatorily intervene, say, within 10 seconds of an alarm (seatshaker, wheelshaker, klaxon alarm, etc).

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted October 31, 2015 at 23:01:11 in reply to Comment 114535

Level 4 self-driving cars is going to be a big, wonderful, beautiful, very fancy Pandora's Box, with both rainbows/unicorns and skull/crossbones beaming out of it simultaneously, both utopia and dystopia. You will yank the giftwrap off the Pandora Box, suddenly causing it to pop Jack-In-A-Box style in a beautifully kablooey pop in a big shower of confetti/glitter -- figuratively speaking.

  • Efficiency -- With the prospect of empty vehicles going home to do tasks for kids or spouses, this could be a traffic disaster for freeways. Legislation may be needed if people abuse the privelage of sending empty vehicles dozens of miles.

  • Moral -- Cars that are faced with an unavoidable fatality decision are going to decide whether to save the occupants or pedestrians. Picture the scenario of a baby stroller suddenly running in front of the car at the last second, from behind roadside newspaper boxes (unavoidably unseen by the car's sensors until too late; now a fatality has to happen). Car must instantly decide to crash into baby stroller OR suddenly veer into a parked car/lamppost 1 meter to the side. Legally solve this. Now consider the sole occupant of car is your child being soccermomed unaccompanied to school. Whose life goes? Whose Responsibility? Legislative? Insurance? Etc.

  • Manned/Unmanned interactions Unmanned vehicles interacting with manned vehicles (bicyclists, drivers, buses, ambulances, police cars). How can a police car pull over an empty vehicle for an expired plate? Will governments be comfortable legally allowing empty vehicles? Will police be? Etc.

  • Regulatory -- What you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do. People without a driver license stepping into a car? Drunk people stepping into the backseat of an empty self-driving car? How old must be children to go unaccompanied in a driverless car? Mailicious passengers trying to damage a self-driving taxi into causing an accident? Are you allowed to sleep for 8 hours in the bed at the back of a self-driving RV, or truck cab of a self-driving truck? What about self driving public transit (uber scale? carpool scale? minibus scale? large bus scale?) Etc. Etc. Etc.

  • Robustness -- How many redundant sensors and cameras must a self-driving car have (e.g. safely function at damage/loss to 25% of sensors? 50% of sensors? 75% of sensors?), so they don't cause accidents when flying road debris damages a camera. This also affects regulatory and insurance, and creates ideas of futuristic safety testing regimens, to ensure they can survive major damage and still safely recover.

  • Insurance -- What the insurance companies are willing to let you do with a Level 4 driverless car. Including all the above.

  • Safety -- Can a level 4 self-driving car safely drive in the middle of a blinding record rainstorm or major snowstorm blizzard, while carrying children that don't know what to do in an emergency? Even Google Car is currently unable to drive reliably in a rainstorm at this time. Level 4 chauffers (like unmanned Uber) isn't going to be legal until you solve this.

  • Security -- Must be upped massively. Hackers. It's already happened. Hackers remotely kill a jeep causing the car to almost park itself on a freeway! And hackers have already blinded driverless cars. Laser pointer tricks a driverless car.

  • Cost -- The cost of solving all the above, factored into your car's sticker price, your government taxes, and your monthly bills (including insurance). It may be so expensive that most carowners will give up carownership, and just hail a neighbour's empty unused car, coming over to your house Uber-style (as a result, conveniently paying a part of that neighbour's car bill!).

We will see a hell of a lot of Level 3 soon (Tesla Autopilot is already almost Level 3).

But the full Level 4 freedom will build up like the Big One (the earthquake) for a few decades, and then go pop in a spetacular fancy Pandora Box of wonderfulness. I believe it will not be until 2050s/2060s/2070s before we see GTHA roads full of full Level 4 freedom self-driving cars. It is really a BIG step, because of all the above.

Looking forward to it! Would like to sleep in the back of a car while going to Ottawa at night, whenever the full Toronto-Ottawa highspeed trains are booked solid during holidays.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2015-11-01 00:33:28

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted November 02, 2015 at 08:30:31

And yet there is a part of me that fears this like I fear nothing else. Can you imagine a 100,000 cars on the highway and some idiot decides to create and plant some little virus into the program. 300 deaths could be the tip of the iceberg. The 403 or QEW never mind the 401 are incredibly busy with the potential for unbelievable mayhem.

Please don't tell me it can't or won't happen. When corporations who spend billions on IT every year can get hacked then the car control system is small potatoes. We have already heard of cases of cars being hacked while they are being driven. Maybe the solution is less computer technology and not more.

Can you imagine if some gifted teenager who is tired of playing Need For Speed decides it would be fun if every Honda on the highway were to immediately hit the nearest Toyota and every Ford were to hit the nearest Chevy?

On another note there is something you can and should do with your friend who drives like a maniac. Refuse to ride with him, and be very blunt about why you are doing it. I have had to do the same thing with a close relative. Believe me it works. Either he will improve his driving or you'll be safer without him. Win Win result.

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted November 02, 2015 at 09:54:24 in reply to Comment 114543

Yup. The Pandora's Box I mentioned in my post right above your post.

It needs to be so security hardened, that death rates from hackers (on a LONG-term snapshot basis; a full decade basis) need to be lower than today's car death rates.

It's also why I don't see Level 4 proliferating until 2050s/2060s/2070s. But Level 3 will be very common in ten years.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted November 04, 2015 at 14:10:02 in reply to Comment 114549

Maybe. Until something goes horribly wrong and 100 or 200 or 500 people die when it malfunctions or somebody plants a virus.

Remember the old saying "Be careful what you wish for"

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 02, 2015 at 10:30:08 in reply to Comment 114549

Not just lower, but a lot lower.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools