Mazda Finds 71% of Europeans Don't Want Full Self-Driving Cars

[Famine]

Government mandated race track every 50km, and I'm Ok about this limp-wristed ev autonomous ball-less future.

Ah, real men drive real cars, and autonomous cars and electric vehicles are for homosexuals and women.

Classy.

 

[Carbon_6]

A beverage cup in hand is not the same as a phone in hand. You're not tempted to look at the beverage. Also, the presence of the law does not mean that it's actually dangerous to drive with something in your hand. If it should be illegal to remove a hand from the wheel, let's ban manual transmissions while we're at it.

I can eat and drive a lot more safely than I can listen to a screaming 2 year old and drive.

OK, granted, a manual transmission is something that you need to let go of the wheel for, but it just seems reckless to downgrade the act of driving to the point that it matters less than eating a sandwich for instance, when there are other motorists around you that could be put at risk because that BLT is too irresistible. When stationary at the lights, perhaps, but not whilst on the move. If you're that hungry, pull over into a service station or something.

 

[TexRex]

when there are other motorists around you

As well as motorcyclists, pedestrians, [non-motor]cyclists, skateboarders, rollerskaters, cartwheelers...all sorts not encapsulated in a metal box.

 

[Carbon_6]

Them too... you get the idea.

 

[Snorevette]

At least in my eyes, if you can't be bothered with putting your full attention on the road when driving, whether you love driving or absolutely despise it, you should not be on the roads period, because you are the problem. If you want to drive, if you need to drive, then your full focus, or at least as much as you can muster at any particular time, should be put on the task at hand, which is driving, and if that is not possible for you or if you can't be bothered, then you don't get to drive, simple as that. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and as such it can be taken away, no? It seems like more and more we are catering to the needs of the lazy and incompetent, which isn't right whether they happen to be the majority or not.

Laziness isn't the only reason people want self-driving cars. There are people who have disabilities that prevent them from driving and who don't live in an area with reliable (if any) public transport; a self-driving car would give them independence, better working opportunities, etc.

 

[homeforsummer]

Laziness isn't the only reason people want self-driving cars. There are people who have disabilities that prevent them from driving and who don't live in an area with reliable (if any) public transport; a self-driving car would give them independence, better working opportunities, etc.

While that's true and undoubtedly one of the good sides to AVs, it's something that's come up remarkably little in AV rhetoric so far. Most AV talk seems to be about letting everyone switch off their brains for the boring bits of their commutes, and most car manufacturers' AV concepts are either mobile living rooms or SUVs combined with smartphones.

I know companies are gonna have to make these things desirable somehow, but it'd be nice to see a few more illustrating ways that AVs could genuinely add to existing mobility solutions.

 

[TexRex]

something that's come up remarkably little in AV rhetoric so far

In our overly-litigious, overly-sensitive society, it wouldn't surprise me the least bit if this subject matter has been avoided by those trying to espouse the benefits of autonomous road transport in an attempt to avoid lawsuits citing defamation or some other nonsense.

Maybe I'm a cynic.

 

[XJ40]

I don't want self driving cars.

I have a 10 minute walk to work so therefore I am extremely lucky that a car is a source of enjoyment for me. If I had a 1 hour commute each way on Boring mcBoringface motorway I guess my answer would be different.

I enjoy driving my 2l rwd turbo diesel. Just this evening I let the back end out a touch, in a deserted but icy car park. Would a self driving car have put a grin on my face in that situation? Nope, I'd have needed fresh underwear.

Would I want a self driving Jaguar? Nope. I like to control when I want to hear a straight six howl at 4500rpm (real sweet spot).

Self driving cars are not for me. But for those whom this technology suits just fine, I can understand the appeal.

I also wonder if the invention of the automatic gearbox and cruise control would have been considered a step towards "self driving cars" when they were released...

 

[homeforsummer]

In our overly-litigious, overly-sensitive society, it wouldn't surprise me the least bit if this subject matter has been avoided by those trying to espouse the benefits of autonomous road transport in an attempt to avoid lawsuits citing defamation or some other nonsense.

Maybe I'm a cynic.

I'd be cynical in a different way. My guess is that we're seeing luxury commuting pods and smartphones-on-wheels because automakers are bricking it at the thought of AVs being an emotionless service like trains or buses, and they're attempting to make it seem as desirable as possible.

Nobody cares who makes the train or bus they travel on because your interaction with it is limited to getting in at one end, sitting down and getting out at the other. If the same becomes the case for cars - and it's a logical outcome - then carmakers offer little that companies such as Google couldn't offer.

 

[Danoff]

OK, granted, a manual transmission is something that you need to let go of the wheel for, but it just seems reckless to downgrade the act of driving to the point that it matters less than eating a sandwich for instance, when there are other motorists around you that could be put at risk because that BLT is too irresistible. When stationary at the lights, perhaps, but not whilst on the move. If you're that hungry, pull over into a service station or something.

You're not thinking this through. Having a passenger is a distraction. Having a stereo is a distraction. Having children in the car is a distraction. Having a hands-free phone call is a distraction. Navigating is a distraction.

Taking it a step further:

Billboards are a distraction. Customized road signs that say "click-it or ticket" are a distraction. Having a tough day at work is a distraction.

It is a disservice to the complexity of the problem to say that if you want to do something distracting in your car you should just pull off the road. I know people who are fantastic drivers who could practically juggle while driving and be safer than other people I know who are terrible drivers and are downright dangerous even if they're paying full attention. I can tell you right now that there are plenty of perfectly legal things to do while driving that (in my personal experience, for my personal driving abilities) are far more dangerous than some illegal activities.

Ultimately, you cannot legislate judgment. And there is no simple "don't drink (soda) and drive" substitute for judgment either. Some people (and I can think of personal examples here) have poor judgment, and even when being fully attentive, are still terrible drivers making horrible decisions. For these people especially, automated vehicles will be a real money/stress/time saver, and that benefits the rest of us as well.

 

[Carbon_6]

You're not thinking this through. Having a passenger is a distraction. Having a stereo is a distraction. Having children in the car is a distraction. Having a hands-free phone call is a distraction. Navigating is a distraction.

Taking it a step further:

Billboards are a distraction. Customized road signs that say "click-it or ticket" are a distraction. Having a tough day at work is a distraction.

It is a disservice to the complexity of the problem to say that if you want to do something distracting in your car you should just pull off the road. I know people who are fantastic drivers who could practically juggle while driving and be safer than other people I know who are terrible drivers and are downright dangerous even if they're paying full attention. I can tell you right now that there are plenty of perfectly legal things to do while driving that (in my personal experience, for my personal driving abilities) are far more dangerous than some illegal activities.

Ultimately, you cannot legislate judgment. And there is no simple "don't drink (soda) and drive" substitute for judgment either. Some people (and I can think of personal examples here) have poor judgment, and even when being fully attentive, are still terrible drivers making horrible decisions. For these people especially, automated vehicles will be a real money/stress/time saver, and that benefits the rest of us as well.

Touché.

 

[TexRex]

I'd be cynical in a different way. My guess is that we're seeing luxury commuting pods and smartphones-on-wheels because automakers are bricking it at the thought of AVs being an emotionless service like trains or buses, and they're attempting to make it seem as desirable as possible.

Nobody cares who makes the train or bus they travel on because your interaction with it is limited to getting in at one end, sitting down and getting out at the other. If the same becomes the case for cars - and it's a logical outcome - then carmakers offer little that companies such as Google couldn't offer.

I think both have a place in the near future, albeit with the possibility of the former becoming obsolete in the long term should society move away from an obsession with status and possession (though this is probably just as far off or even farther off than the peaceful future I proposed earlier in the thread).

There are those now who only seek transportation, the ride-sharing/car-sharing/Ubering set, and autonomous road transportation from the Googles and Ubers of the world are logical, but anyone who thinks people who only buy Porsches (or these nauseating "hypercars" that seem to be flooding the market) for their performance are delusional, and autonomous examples would likely sell as long as there are people who can afford them. Of course existing mass market manufacturers would likely be just fine as they provide choice more than transportation.

Frankly, I can even see the potential for a boutique print-your-own-AV industry where one can walk into a franchise location staffed by consultants, hand over some credits, approach a kiosk and design their own autonomous vehicle--with the assistance of said consultant if they wish--based on their needs and tastes, then simply wait while it's printed and assembled. Yeah, it's a stretch, but who knows?

 

[ImaRobot]

Currently, I'm without a vehicle, so in the context of using Uber and things of the like, the only issue I can think of for myself is just knowing how bad some of these pre-determined routes can be when people use their GPS. A live driver has the option intuitive about it if they know the general area, where as autonomous vehicles will likely be following a stricter route. Although, that probably is a moot point since it seems most people I get paired with have a hard time even following the verbal directions that are given by their own GPS.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

You're not thinking this through. Having a passenger is a distraction. Having a stereo is a distraction. Having children in the car is a distraction. Having a hands-free phone call is a distraction. Navigating is a distraction.

Taking it a step further:

Billboards are a distraction. Customized road signs that say "click-it or ticket" are a distraction. Having a tough day at work is a distraction.

It is a disservice to the complexity of the problem to say that if you want to do something distracting in your car you should just pull off the road. I know people who are fantastic drivers who could practically juggle while driving and be safer than other people I know who are terrible drivers and are downright dangerous even if they're paying full attention. I can tell you right now that there are plenty of perfectly legal things to do while driving that (in my personal experience, for my personal driving abilities) are far more dangerous than some illegal activities.

Ultimately, you cannot legislate judgment. And there is no simple "don't drink (soda) and drive" substitute for judgment either. Some people (and I can think of personal examples here) have poor judgment, and even when being fully attentive, are still terrible drivers making horrible decisions. For these people especially, automated vehicles will be a real money/stress/time saver, and that benefits the rest of us as well.

We already have technologies which keeps the driver aware of the road.
For example :
Hyundai is working on a technology where the car keeps it's focus on drivers's behaviour & face expression in the car to keep him focused on the road.
Also - we have lane keeping assist A.K.A Smart Cruise Control, with also Auto Emergency Brake for pedestrians & cars up ahead.
With all of those i'm surprised on the huge need for a fully automated cars for a healthy & licensed drivers.
For people with disabilities or mental issues i understand.
While there is a good solution which is called a Taxi.
Nissan is also working on something more advanced called B2V ( Brain To Vehicle )

But there is one issue - what if the driver had a sudden uneeded thoughts which will make the car act on something which isn't dangerous on the road ?
It could lead the car to hit the sidewalk just because the brain imagined something none existent on the road ?
Well i don't know if they'll find a solution to that.

 

[Imari]

While there is a good solution which is called a Taxi.

One day you'll find out why a taxi is not a desirable solution to a lot of people over having their own transport.

 

[homeforsummer]

But there is one issue - what if the driver had a sudden uneeded thoughts which will make the car act on something which isn't dangerous on the road ?
It could lead the car to hit the sidewalk just because the brain imagined something none existent on the road ?

I mean... it's probably not going to rear-end another vehicle just because your thoughts turn x-rated for a second.

I think the idea is that it runs on the same thought process that you'd use to be driving anyway. If you can currently negotiate down a road without veering onto the pavement because you're hungry and see a Taco Bell, then I imagine you'd not have that problem when operating purely on brain power.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

One day you'll find out why a taxi is not a desirable solution to a lot of people over having their own transport.

Please tell me why
I have many guesses but i want to read yours

I mean... it's probably not going to rear-end another vehicle just because your thoughts turn x-rated for a second.

I think the idea is that it runs on the same thought process that you'd use to be driving anyway. If you can currently negotiate down a road without veering onto the pavement because you're hungry and see a Taco Bell, then I imagine you'd not have that problem when operating purely on brain power.

Um ... you mean it's ok to have multiple thoughts at once ?
If that is true - then drivers can still focus on the road even with other distractions - for example - just simply thinking about many things in your mind while driving.
In other words - multi-tasking.
We humans are like organic computers X)
The nissan technology is making us like a Semi-Cyborgs - which are examples of human & machines working together

 

[Imari]

Please tell me why
I have many guesses but i want to read yours

Let's start with the fact that for me to take a taxi to work and back would cost me all the money I would earn for the day, and I'm not even close to minimum wage.

Kuwait is a small country, so perhaps it's not a problem for you when the furthest you could drive within the country is ~50km. Think about how that works in Australia when our major cities are ~1000km apart. Driving from one side of Melbourne to the other takes from 1 to 3 hours depending on route and traffic, and would cost upward of $150 in a taxi.

In large cities with mediocre public transport, or if you happen to live or work somewhere outside of a major city (like many people do), a taxi is a terrible replacement for a car.

I'm sure you can think of other reasons, but that right there is enough to make your suggestion an non-starter.

 

[homeforsummer]

Um ... you mean it's ok to have multiple thoughts at once ?
If that is true - then drivers can still focus on the road even with other distractions - for example - just simply thinking about many things in your mind while driving.
In other words - multi-tasking.
We humans are like organic computers X)
The nissan technology is making us like a Semi-Cyborgs - which are examples of human & machines working together

I'm not sure entirely what you're getting at, but I'd not read about the system before replying so I did get one aspect wrong.

All the system does - for the time being at least - is prepares the car's functions in advance based on your thoughts, whether that's putting everything in a slightly sportier setting if you're in a mood for driving quickly, or turning down the temperature if you're getting hot.

On that basis, it's even less likely to

lead the car to hit the sidewalk just because the brain imagined something none existent on the road

Though I'm not sure you're quite getting it anyway. While humans can multi-task, it varies from person to person and it varies depending on what tasks you're attempting to accomplish simultaneously.

I'm perfectly capable of driving and singing along to the radio simultaneously, because the way I'm wired means I can do both tasks to a fair degree of competence without it occupying all my brain power (on a similar vein, I can play the guitar and sing at the same time - two tasks that require different skills yet complement each other when done together, but also difficult skills to combine when you're not experienced).

However, if a passenger is talking to me and I have to negotiate a junction, I tend to go quiet. I know how to drive, and I know how to talk, but both of those tasks require an extra element of concentration that doesn't come from pure muscle memory - the junction requires you to look in several places and make judgements based on what's around you, and talking to a passenger requires you to respond to something on-the-fly. My default mode in that scenario is to stop talking and concentrate on negotiating the junction.

Both scenarios involve me driving and making sounds from my mouth, and both are multi-tasking, but they are very much not the same thing. The human brain isn't infallible.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

Let's start with the fact that for me to take a taxi to work and back would cost me all the money I would earn for the day, and I'm not even close to minimum wage.

Kuwait is a small country, so perhaps it's not a problem for you when the furthest you could drive within the country is ~50km. Think about how that works in Australia when our major cities are ~1000km apart. Driving from one side of Melbourne to the other takes from 1 to 3 hours depending on route and traffic, and would cost upward of $150 in a taxi.

In large cities with mediocre public transport, or if you happen to live or work somewhere outside of a major city (like many people do), a taxi is a terrible replacement for a car.

I'm sure you can think of other reasons, but that right there is enough to make your suggestion an non-starter.

You're 80% correct actually
Even in my small country - Taxi's are also expensive.
If i thought on taking taxi every day - it'll cost something like 200$ dollors a month & that it iself isn't cheap when in my personal car it takes from me about between 60$ & 100$ dollors - huge difference X)
So i stand corrected and it is fine to be informed on paying attention on the monthly taxi pay.
I actually didn't thought about the daily cost for a taxi monthly so as a middle class citizen i stand corrected
This is indeed not a really good solution for middle classes but for rich people they won't give that much of a care about the taxi monthly cost X)

I'm not sure entirely what you're getting at, but I'd not read about the system before replying so I did get one aspect wrong.

All the system does - for the time being at least - is prepares the car's functions in advance based on your thoughts, whether that's putting everything in a slightly sportier setting if you're in a mood for driving quickly, or turning down the temperature if you're getting hot.

On that basis, it's even less likely to

Though I'm not sure you're quite getting it anyway. While humans can multi-task, it varies from person to person and it varies depending on what tasks you're attempting to accomplish simultaneously.

I'm perfectly capable of driving and singing along to the radio simultaneously, because the way I'm wired means I can do both tasks to a fair degree of competence without it occupying all my brain power (on a similar vein, I can play the guitar and sing at the same time - two tasks that require different skills yet complement each other when done together, but also difficult skills to combine when you're not experienced).

However, if a passenger is talking to me and I have to negotiate a junction, I tend to go quiet. I know how to drive, and I know how to talk, but both of those tasks require an extra element of concentration that doesn't come from pure muscle memory - the junction requires you to look in several places and make judgements based on what's around you, and talking to a passenger requires you to respond to something on-the-fly. My default mode in that scenario is to stop talking and concentrate on negotiating the junction.

Both scenarios involve me driving and making sounds from my mouth, and both are multi-tasking, but they are very much not the same thing. The human brain isn't infallible.

Just like the computer
Computers also aren't immune to mistakes all the time
But still - Good point
So all that is needed is for the person to decrease his distractions as much as possible to at least being able to do excellent on almost all evasions on critical situations on the road

 

[Liquid]

71% of Europeans polled don't want autonomous cars.

Just saying.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

71% of Europeans polled don't want autonomous cars.

Just saying.

Exactly what i thought a little time ago on this thread X)

 

[Joey D]

71% of Europeans polled don't want autonomous cars.

Just saying.

From the article:

The study polled 11,008 drivers above the age of 18 across various European markets. Obviously, this number is small compared to the 731 million residents that call Europe home. However, these research companies are good at extrapolating data from a small number of participants.

The extrapolated the data for their findings.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

From the article:



The extrapolated the data for their findings.

Good work for a small company like mazda to pull that number X)
I wonder how long it takes to ask 700 million people for that study X)

 

[Joey D]

Good work for a small company like mazda to pull that number X)
I wonder how long it takes to ask 700 million people for that study X)

Mazda didn't conduct the study, Ipsos Mori did, which is one of the largest research companies in Europe.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

Mazda didn't conduct the study, Ipsos Mori did, which is one of the largest research companies in Europe.

Then why the title says ( Mazda ) ?
If that so - then shouldn't we trust the largest research company ?
Kinda ironic for one of the largest research companies to pull that number isn't it ?
I see contradiction after contradiction here.

 

[Joey D]

Then why the title says ( Mazda ) ?
If that so - then shouldn't we trust the largest research company ?
Kinda ironic for one of the largest research companies to pull that number isn't it ?
I see contradiction after contradiction here.

Mazda commissioned the research and worked with the company. Based on the data it's what they found. If you read the article I explain all of this.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

Mazda commissioned the research and worked with the company. Based on the data it's what they found. If you read the article I explain all of this.

So it's half correct to say that Mazda worked to pull that number i presume ?

 

[Joey D]

So it's half correct to say that Mazda worked to pull that number i presume ?

Mazda didn't pull the number, Ipsos Mori did. Mazda interpreted the data Ipsos Mori found and made the conclusion. So the headline is correct, Mazda found 71% of Europeans don't want fully autonomous cars.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

Mazda didn't pull the number, Ipsos Mori did. Mazda interpreted the data Ipsos Mori found and made the conclusion. So the headline is correct, Mazda found 71% of Europeans don't want fully autonomous cars.

Ok i see - thanks for the explanation
Based on the article - younger generation doesn't understand the risk of using fully automated vehicles compared to older generation.
So should we take the younger generation opinions more seriously than older generation ?
As we know - the older you are - the more the experience you get in life than younger people.
I'll side with the older people on that since usually older people are wiser