HomeNews & PoliticsRelated VideosMore From: CNBC

Why Don’t We Have Self-Driving Cars Yet?

5651 ratings | 501020 views
More companies are trying to bring self-driving cars to the masses than ever before, but a truly autonomous vehicle still doesn’t exist. It’s not clear if, or when, our driverless future will arrive. Where exactly are we with self-driving cars, and when can we expect them to be a part of our daily lives? » Subscribe to CNBC: https://cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC » Subscribe to CNBC TV: https://cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision » Subscribe to CNBC Classic: https://cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCclassic About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more. Connect with CNBC News Online Get the latest news: https://www.cnbc.com/ Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: https://cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC Follow CNBC News on Facebook: https://cnb.cx/LikeCNBC Follow CNBC News on Twitter: https://cnb.cx/FollowCNBC Follow CNBC News on Instagram: https://cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC #CNBC Why Don’t We Have Self-Driving Cars Yet?
Category: News & Politics
Get embed code!
Text Comments (1963)
Darryl Sumner (4 hours ago)
Self driving cars are another means of control of the people, laziness will cost humanity, seems nobody learned anything from slavery.
RICKY B. A. (11 hours ago)
Change the infrastructure (meaning make roads perfect for self driving cars) have all cars linked to sensors put up over the road on light poles or something so they have info as to what will be on the road miles ahead of the vehicle.
GodsIlluminatedOne (16 hours ago)
FACT....IT WILL COST $1,000,000,000,000.00 TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO....( OUTFIT ROAD SENSORS TO EVERY 1 MILE OF ROAD IN AMERIKKKA )....PEOPLE THINK DEEP ABOUT SELF DRIVE CARS 🤔🤔🤔🤔
FlossGvnG TeleVisioN (4 days ago)
You know what I hate about the normal cars in this day in age the sensors so why I keep going with that sort of innovation making a car that works only on sensors because sensors go bad... overtime and sensors are expensive to fix! I say no self driving car is worth it.
Javier Fernandez (4 days ago)
Who let that guy from Navigant make those outrageous statements.
G T (4 days ago)
Why do we want driverless cars I do not want to use one Too slow I want to be in control at all times every time ... I enjoy driving I don't want to be driven by anyone or thing . I want to get to work or to other destination quickly and safe . I so not want to be forced to purchase driverless cars . Good for people who can't drive yes agree ...but not for me . Not interested Sorry
Jim Emanuel (4 days ago)
Self-driving vehicles are in a dangerous stage. They must coexist with manually operated vehicles. Thus, they are just another vehicle to contend with. When industry networks all the full self-driving vehicles so that they can "communicate" with each regarding destinations, then it will be practical to mandate this type of vehicle is the only one authorized on the road. Since self-driving vehicles don't use gasoline or diesel fuel, states will have to establish a system to collect fees for streets and highways to offset the loss of tax revenue from the sale of gasoline and diesel fuels. It is assumed that the cost to produce gasoline for motorcycles will be too great to sustain and motorcycles will no longer be viable. When the time comes, the government will establish a date when all gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be banned from the road. There are many other sectors that will be greatly affected by self-driving vehicles. I'm glad that I won't be around when these things come to pass.
Alexei Babin (5 days ago)
And this is how the US slowly loses it's tech advantage to less developed countries.
Raymond Lee (6 days ago)
People getting killed and there's accident? As if there's no accident or people killed with human drivers😂. Elderly drivers are most dangerous
Jensen Jean E (6 days ago)
alcoholics can drive safely with an autonomous car. We don’t need to worry to much about them with this technology.
akselmani (6 days ago)
Sam Abuelsamid is not only unqualified to comment on any of this but also a promoter of backwards thinking. With more people like him, we would have been 20 years behind the current tech.
Tim Wallace (7 days ago)
the only reason we dont have driverless cars is legal.. no one wants to get sued into oblivion when one crash happens the liability issues always come to light. Wake up.
Tony Mack (7 days ago)
Because I don't want ok one
Joseph Glover (7 days ago)
This is 10 to 15 years down the road and I don't see people trusting driverless cars with their lives just to save a few bucks.
Chuck W Willingham (8 days ago)
What is the purpose of self driving cars?
Chuck W Willingham (8 days ago)
Why Don’t We Have Self-Driving Cars Yet? lazy people...
SAMI HASAN (9 days ago)
With due respect, Is Sam Abuelsamid qualified enough to comprehend self driving car software? he is a mechanical engineer who worked on electric control systems, no software background .
Stan Dupp (9 days ago)
Its already bad enough that we are tracked everywhere we go via our phones and our cars. I see it as an infringement on our privacy already that cars are hooked up to wifi and the internet. Now imagine if they start putting self driving cars on the road and you wanted to go somewhere but since the company providing the self driving service to your car doesn't like where you want to go, it could refuse to take you there. Kind of like the way social media is restricting free speech. You can throw your phone out but you can't disconnect these modern cars from the internet and self driving ones are just another way to take away our freedoms!
EZwA (10 days ago)
EZwA TRIKY ROBOT CAR POLITICS: (the liabiliT vs sAfT cNundrum) lStlE - wAmO(gUgL rObot) & Ubr & lyft, R curNtLE doOn lIk 30-40% in stock $vLU(on a pRLL, ofcoOrs Bcaz thA’r all the sAm dRn compNE) & therz a rEsN. I dOnt C NE clevr wA RoOnd this 5th rObot problM I had mNtioned, ruflE sPkng it’s lIk this, IF the rObot cRz get lEgZlIzd & it Bcoms, 4XMpl - that there R 5000000 rObot cRz(from all rObot compNEs in tOtl, gUgL lIklE Bng the qEn), drIVng 20 hrs pr dA, that comes to 100,000,000 drIVng hrs pr dA.. Or 7000 complEt hUmN lIftIms of drIVng tIm pr dA.. but in NE EvNt, agN roughlE sPkng - at this 100,000,000 drIVng hrs pr day rate, evRE 10000 drIVng-hrs(for rObots that's 10000 tIms a dA) there comes up from the wigLEnS of lIf as unprEdictabl az the wethr.. a sitUAtion in which N accidNt is NcumbNt & ther is UsULE a chOEc BtwEn brAkng the rUls & puTng other non-at-fault drIvrs at a 1 in 20 risk of BEng injurd or worse(& the drIvR or rObot cR-compNE Bng guilT & lEgLE at fault), OR, stAyEng lEgL, bt at a +90% chNc of crashing in2 hUevr botched up, etc., & the drIvR or rObot-compNE Bing innocNt of lEgL-lIabiliT. sO thN 10,000 tIms pr dA, the rObot cRz must B prOgrMd 2 Ithr hav tOtal of +9000 crashes where thA R lEgLE innocNt, & hav the lEst at fault accidNts BUT the mOst actUL accidNts on the rOdz-(2/3 of tIm wud B w/their rObot cR pSNgrs in cR-), OR, brAk the law for the sAfer 2 hUmNiT Ovr-all-rout puTng roughlE 500 other inocNT drIvrs or pSNgrs-(agN, including their Own pSNgrz roughly 2/3 of thOs tIms) in N(at rObot cR compNE-falt) injurE or f8LiT incidNt.. pr dA... verE tuff chOEc.. SHORT STORE SHORT, THIS MATH MENSZ.. ROBOT COMPNEZ WILL HAVE TO CHUZ BTWEN HAVNG MOST AVOIDABL (YET LEGALLY XONERATED) ACCIDENTS(LIK 9000-9500 pr dA) ON THE ROD?, OR HAVNG 500 AT FAULT ACCIDENTS ON THE ROD, DAILY - AGN, I DO NOT C NE SLICK WA ROUND THIS. IT MEANZ, UNTL THA CN GET A KILLR GUD SAMARITN(literLE) LAW PAST, WHERE THA R LEGALLY ALLOWED TO HAVE MAB SEVERAL HUNDRED, BY PROPABILITY DECISION, AT FAULT & EZELY AVOIDABL ACCIDNTS/FATALITZ(incluDng 2/3 w/their own pSNgrz).. PR DA, WITHOUT LEGAL OR POLITICAL BLAME.. ALL-ROBOT COMPNEZ(inclUDng gUgL & ther4 Ubr & lyft), R UNTL FRTHR NOTICE, SCRUWD. QUITE TRIKY ROBOT CUNUNDRUM INDEED, A NATIONAL/WORLD YD PERMIT FOR LEGAL DELIBERATE SACRIFICING OF HUMAN LIFE AT ROBOT COMPANES DISCRETION - (WITH THE SUPPOSED AIM OF GRATR OVERALL ROD SAFTEY.. BUT STILL A LEGAL HOMICIDE PERMIT) OR THE MOST ACCIDENTS DAILY.. THAT GOOD SAMARITAN CALQLATED CASUALTY OF THE IMPERFECTION OF THE STREETS, HOMOCIDE-PERMIT IS PROBLE GONNA TAK QUIET A YYYyyLlll TO GET PASST FOR OBVIOUS REASONS & THE PUBLIC ALSO PROBLE WONT TAKE TO WELL TO ROBOTS HAVING MOST ACCIDENTS ON THE ROAD-ITHER.. BECAZ NITHR rings all 2 wL 2 the gNRL public ear.. sO then, this is the cunundrum Ppl, its Bng trapd BtwEn 2 verE politicLE unplezNt optians.. QIt EZ 2 C inDd, Y king apL is siTng bak & w8tng.. & tesla?, AI compUters lrNng from thEz Ppl drIvrs?, I’m gSCng mOst Ppl tAk the hUmAn sAfer bt hIer lEgL lIabiliT risk chOEc.. at 5000000 cRs, 1000000 of thM, Bng public subleted tes3 cabs 4 XMpL? that wud OnlE B 2000x pr dA, which is 100 rebL oOtlaw accidNts pr dA, mA wL actULE B sAVng lIves Overall.. bt the mathmaticLE clUlS public will still complAn fR mOr thN sA thNQ(IF thEz actULE sAv lIvs).. sO Ither wA U STILL nEd the stinkN homocIde permit. EVEN FOR ELON THE GR8– THE DMMNN POLITICAL SOCIALOGICL CUNUNDRUM IS STILL DRRRN THERE✋️☹️
Gene Smith (10 days ago)
The guy who says Tesla is behind because of the hardware is an idiot. It's NOT the hardware, it's exactly what that one lady said it was, the algorithms.
orange70383 (12 days ago)
Why would you want to give up the freedom of mobility with a self driving car. Self driving cars are the first step to limiting your movement. Think of all the laws and rules that will naturally come with self driving cars. People are so dam ignorant, they are just asking to be controlled.
MLievens (12 days ago)
Most consumers wont own them bc they are expensive... what a conservative view. Once the tech is there, it will not be more expensive than a current car.
burninghard everything (13 days ago)
Yeah automation! Great! Finally corporate America is able to get rid of that disturbing and annoying human factor to further increase their revenue!
Quang Lam (13 days ago)
Why don’t we ask our creator to design a better human. We need to improve the architecture of the species for the sake of the species itself.
Ethan Carberry-Holt (14 days ago)
CNBC: Why don't we have self-driving cars yet? Tesla: Am I a joke to you?
Fun Builder (14 days ago)
Yes, Tesla's are a joke
Neal (15 days ago)
No one asked.
zombiebillcosby (16 days ago)
Most cars are already self-driving, the issue is it’s because people are on their phones.
Rob Ruble (17 days ago)
I got a question about driverless cars if i could... When you go camping with your wife and kids and an axe murdering maniac approaches your family. After you all run and jump in the car for an escape is the car gona know to run him down? Or does the axe murderer just have to stand in front of the car and make it stop? 😯
Rob Ruble (17 days ago)
Honestly guys, cool idea. Impressive how far along things are with self driving vehicles. But the reality is, down the road when they pass laws that state while traveling in a self driving vehicle you must have an individual with a valid drivers license at the controls, (brakes, accelerator, and steering in case of an emergency, its gona be all for nothing and pointless. Lets face it, most peoples day to day driving is back and forth to work, grociery store, ect. 20 mins this way, 20 mins that way.... Kinda pointless really.
Jumbomuffin13 (17 days ago)
Apparently having humans test sht isn’t right but animal testing is? Fk humans!
Bob Blum (17 days ago)
I review the crucial AI problems that need to be solved for full self-driving cars to become a reality. They are 1) intuitive physics (including causal reasoning,) 2) intuitive psychology, and 3) multi-step reasoning and planning. The article is here: https://www.bobblum.com/ESSAYS/COMPSCI/self-driving-cars.html The sensor suite needs to achieve pixel level RGB-depth (range) at least comparable to human binocular vision (stereopsis) including minimal degradation in bad weather. This will not be achieved by Tesla, Cruise, or Aurora (or anyone else) for several more years (such that the car can drive autonomously in heavy traffic and bad weather.) Nonetheless, I look forward to exciting progress and gradual widespread rollout of Level 4.
jeremy 94 (18 days ago)
Did she just say people are being killed???
cave man (18 days ago)
the real reason is these things can be hacked. if they can be hacked, then they can be dangerous.
James Mcclary (18 days ago)
Because their too busy trying to build self driving semis. Theirs no money in a self driving car.
Zanjabeel Sukkar (18 days ago)
Ok Since most of the Population in US is in the cities and alot of the cities have high crime rate. You want to tell me that you will send cars that are new and technological and worth alot of money through poor neighborhoods without a driver? who is going to insure and invest in that type of business? I think Today's trend is that anything that resembles technology and future gets attention on stock market level It is sad that geeks that are abandoning human society are being rewarded rather than hard working family men
GodBlessTexas (19 days ago)
We don’t want self driving cars
S (17 days ago)
Who's we
chan pol (19 days ago)
How the cars stopped burglary or car jacking ?
Uranium Farm (20 days ago)
Glorified matrix multiplication and a smorgasbord of hacks. To call AI is 'stupid' is too generous.
Proud Gay Californian Registered Democrat (20 days ago)
Only lazy fat people want self driving cars in the first place. Drive yourself fatties
mick mccrory (22 days ago)
When I was 16, the last thing on Earth I wanted was a self driving car. I wanted a '66 G-T-O, with a 389 & Tri-power. 4 speed transmission & positraction rear end. If you want to ride in the back seat, get your Mom to drive you around.
Leonard Church (16 days ago)
lmao, I can only imagine a 40 year old having their 70-80 year old mom driving him around. Stupid comment.
karebu2 (20 days ago)
mick mccrory happy 18th year old kid.
Jeffrey Johnson (22 days ago)
HAL, why are you driving towards that bridge abutment? Don't worry about it, Dave.
Benny Martinez (23 days ago)
Can a self driving car drive on the pch, offroad, go through construction zones, make u-turns, go through a McDonald's drive thru, park in a parking lot, stop at the railroad tracks? I would "love" to know.
ST (23 days ago)
First, Sam Abuelamid is right - nobody asked us in Chandler, AZ if we wanted to be in the experiment. That should be criminal. Second, I don't need driverless cars in the first place, and don't want them. I like to drive! And as was said in this video, people plus safety assist technologies may be safer than anything these companies can come up with.
György Névery (24 days ago)
Oh, that evil Tesla. How nice that everybody else is so careful. ;)
Enigma Productions (24 days ago)
Ok see their big problem is that they don't share the same infrastructure you need nodes and sensors on the traffic lights and street lamps.
428CJ70 (25 days ago)
How can a self driving car know to go extra slow if a child off the side of the road is playing with a ball? As a teen driver, I could have killed a child had I not been watching her and run off the road when she ran right in front of me at the very last second.
Proud Gay Californian Registered Democrat (20 days ago)
@György Névery Wrong self driving car sensors have already proven they will fail when they are needed most killing you and the obstacle.
György Névery (24 days ago)
A self driving car has sensors. So do people. The difference is just that a self driving car has more of them and unlike people the car can use all of them simultaneously. The car can detect and monitor the children long before even get close enough to be dangerous. Radar can see things what are invisible for the vision because there is something what blocking the sight.
Dani the volger (24 days ago)
Self driving cars are gonna be a bad idea
jan simonides (24 days ago)
A computer doesn´t know there is a real outer world as it is not conscious nor will ever be.
Brian Wright (26 days ago)
Safer my ass. If I get hit by an autonomous car I'm suing everyone I possibly can
Wayne (27 days ago)
Reminds me of the guy who bought a new Winnebago. He decided to try out the cruise control that the salesman had demonstrated. He was in the back making coffee when the accident happened. The vehicle was a total loss. His lawyers successfully sued Winnebago because the user documents didn't state he couldn't go do something else!
Uncle Bobby (27 days ago)
sad that the industry has to try and fix other peoples stupid! if people didn't text and drive we wouldn't need this
DJ Artyom (27 days ago)
Hackers when they see a self driving: “ Am I about to ruin this guys riding experience”
hi youtube (27 days ago)
So if all these big companies worked together they would make it happen in a year think about if all these companies United for autonomous cars
Wayne (28 days ago)
To make it work it will be necessary to have all vehicles on the road connected to a supercomputer control system. Then all pedestrians, horses and cyclists will have to be banned. It threatens personal liberty and freedom.
Leif Johnson (29 days ago)
Self driving is not "too big" for Tesla. Tesla is gathering BILLIONS of miles of driving date from ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. And Tesla only needs the sensors it already have in its cars to support autonomous driving.
Leif Johnson (29 days ago)
People need to think about what they say about autonomous driving. It is not necessary that autonomous driving works 100% of the time for it to be a success. IMHO, if autonomous driving proves to be accurate 90% or more of the time regulators will not be able to resist the public demand that ALL cars have autonomous driving. Remember if 10% of all accidents involve cars with autonomous driving that does not mean that faulty autonomous driving was the CAUSE of these accidents. First, was the autonomous driving feature ENGAGED when the accident occurred? (Of course eventually the driver will NOT be given the option of disengaging autonomous driving.) Second, could the car with engaged autonomous driving have AVOIDED the accident? For example, if a driver who is texting rear-ends a Tesla stuck at a stoplight with autonomous driving that would NOT be the fault of the car with autonomous driving. Insurance companies and autonomous taxis will solve this problem. We will reach a point wherein insurance companies will charge such a higher premium for any car that does NOT have autonomous driving that every driver will be forced to either a get a car with autonomous driving or to use autonomous taxis. No one will be allowed to drive a car with our autonomous driving. Most importantly, very soon - within one to three years - the number of annual deaths and injuries from traffic accidents will be reduced to a tiny fraction of what those numbers are today due to autonomous driving.
ƬψƬΩiiXinnex (29 days ago)
From my point of view, the full self driving cars will be available by the end of early 2020s.
ƬψƬΩiiXinnex (4 days ago)
@AMV MAKER1338 As in work in progress between 2020 - '25? Or release date of full self driving by car companies?
AMV MAKER1338 (4 days ago)
Nothing happening between 2015- 2019 it only happens between 2020-2025 know what im saying
Will Stevens (29 days ago)
Im a control freak. No thank you
Will Stevens (28 days ago)
@Leif Johnson Not a bad driver. Been in one fender bender in 25 years. I just rather not be a passenger when someone else is driving; esp. a computer.
Leif Johnson (29 days ago)
Let me know when you are on the road so I can pull off.
John GTA (29 days ago)
SURE - we will have self driving cars much before we have robots that deliver their own babies and suckle their young......
John GTA (29 days ago)
NEVER - because there will always be women drivers around [and moron men drivers]
Eliazar wrx (1 month ago)
We're going to get ran over food they don't look when they're crossing the street
BKneroEntertainment (1 month ago)
Dame that fat navigant guy needs to stop smearing Tesla and acting like he knows better. Go on a diet and stop eating donuts fatass.
Alex Levine (1 month ago)
There are already so many self driving cars in the public like the tesla model x
Alcir Vogel (1 month ago)
Vogel1 Congratulations from 1frst!!!
Indria Happy (1 month ago)
I love tesla, this car good for eldery , and good for disable .
jan simonides (30 days ago)
yeah, Tesla is good for mentally disabled
Girish kumar (1 month ago)
Saying is one thing.. Start production and selling to people is whole another level.. Tesla has an edge..
jacobpaige (1 month ago)
I notice that none of them are developing self-driving buses. Since ordinary people won't be able to own them anyway, why not do the planet and the poor a favor by targeting public transit? Its not like it would even be a bad thing for the ride share companies funding some of this. They could have private, automated bus lines in addition to their automated taxis.
Alon Tuchner (1 month ago)
The problem with self driving cars is those edge cases in which the intelligence of the computer is just too limited. For example, imagine a signalized intersections in which the traffic lights broke, and there is a cop managing the intersection with hand gestures. A computer just can’t handle such a scenario.
jan simonides (30 days ago)
the intelligence of a computer is ZERO
Cheif Investigator (1 month ago)
The reason we don’t have self-driving cars is because CNBC has made one yet... Easy answer to your own question...
Ghost Fhoenix (1 month ago)
Automation doesnt go well with human rights.. becaus human rights go against survival of the fittest... with everything automated, the only ones who will survive are the billionaires...
Anthony Robertson (1 month ago)
Elon Musk is always way overestimating how fast his companies will deliver things they are working on. He was on Joe Rogan and siad within 6 months his company would anounce a life changing tech that will totally shake up the tech world. That was a little over a year ago and it didn't happen. His underground tunnel for cars, nothing, his high speed vacuum train tunnel, nothing. This is a constant pattern with him.
Ethan Steel (1 month ago)
True. But he always deliver in the end.
Thomas LeMay (1 month ago)
I made a living for 47 repairing high technology that failed to operate as designed , what do I think lots of people and property will be damaged.
Yiannis Mantheakis (1 month ago)
CNBC is a shill for the ICE auto industry. The hate expressed by the mainstream media especially this one for Tesla is to say the least; vile. Elon has proven you naysayers wrong so many times that it is not funny anymore. Show me another company that does not pay a single dollar in advertising and yet is giving the competition a run for their money. If the mainstream media had their way we would revert to cave dwelling. Shame on you.
mohamed riswan (1 month ago)
Autonomous car will be confused when driving in Asian Road hahaha...
The O.K. Corral (1 month ago)
Sameer Shelar: Because "UNintelligent agencies" can hack into the vehicle and CRASH IT, or crash others into you, if they do not like you (this was exposed awhile ago)! Say NO to self driving/autonomous vehicles!
jan simonides (1 month ago)
People who like driverless cars are so demented! Self-feeding restaurants next!
programmer437 (1 month ago)
At 8:27 we have a rare video of a senator talking sensibly.
Mohamed ElZarif (1 month ago)
Who also still loves driving stick? I know I do
jan simonides (1 month ago)
I do!
jan simonides (1 month ago)
The stories we tell about self-driving cars, however, don’t hold up. For one thing we have no good evidence that self-driving cars are safer than human operators. Thanks to an incredibly business-friendly NHTSA, the data we get from companies testing autonomous driving tech is mostly voluntarily submitted self-assessments that “read like marketing brochures.” Companies brag about all the miles they are clocking in their autonomous vehicles, but these are not quality miles. Instead, they are primarily miles generated in geofenced areas that eliminate factors such as inclement weather or poor lane markings. But the solution is not to add more miles — it isn’t possible to add enough miles using current development strategies. As a recent report argued, to determine, for example, whether self-driving cars were even 20 percent safer than human-operated vehicles (with 95 percent confidence) would require autonomous vehicles to be “driven more than 11 billion miles to detect this difference. With a fleet of 100 autonomous vehicles being test-driven 24 hours a day, 365 days a year at an average speed of 25 miles per hour, this would take 518 years — about a half a millennium.” As Michael DeKort, a former aerospace systems engineer argues, “it is not possible, neither in time or money, to drive and redrive, stumble and restumble on all of the scenarios necessary to complete the effort.” At the same time, he argues that “the process will cause thousands of accidents, injuries and casualties when efforts to train and test the AI move from benign scenarios to complex and dangerous scenarios. Thousands of accident scenarios will have to be run thousands of times each.” Moreover, scientists aren’t even sure how to proceed beyond “Level 2” driverless tech in which drivers are for the most part along for the ride as the car does its thing, but are expected to intervene quickly if something goes wrong. In tests conducted by numerous companies professional drivers (even if there were two drivers in the car) kept falling asleep, and even if they were alerted, took a considerable time (upwards of forty-five seconds) to regain situational awareness — far too long to prevent a tragic accident. Part of the safety story makes sense. Deep learning, sensors, and cameras, should all be used to make vehicles and driving safer. Volvo (the company that standardized three-point seatbelts in passenger vehicles), for example, advocates cars equipped with driver-facing cameras and AI that will alert the driver if they are looking away from the road for too long, or can even stop the car if the vehicle’s software determines the driver is driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. These are interesting ideas that should be explored. But there is simply no good data at this point demonstrating that driverless cars, developed using any existing strategies, will lead to safer outcomes. There are also much easier, cheaper, and more sensible ways, of reducing vehicular deaths: reducing or eliminating cars in areas with high pedestrian traffic and creating more car-free zones; investing in more and better green buses, shuttles, and trains, so it’s easy to weave public transportation into our travel plans; paying a decent wage and enforcing strict health and safety rules for drivers, particularly long-haul drivers. The second story we’re told, however, that driverless cars are an efficient solution to wasted resources, makes no sense whatsoever. One fairly obvious problem is that while cars are big, heavy, and expensive, they are not particularly robust. If people rent them out all day while they are at work, they’ll depreciate rapidly. Also, why would people be more willing to share their car just because it was an autonomous vehicle? Granted, there has been some interest in carsharing, through apps like Getaround and Drivy, but carsharing hasn’t taken off for the simple reason that most people can’t risk being without transportation or the possibility that a stranger might destroy their vehicle. A far bigger problem, however, is one of vision. Self-driving car advocates are remarkably oblivious to the developmental imperatives of a landscape characterized by looming climate catastrophe, underinvestment in basic lifesaving science, resource depletion, and yawing inequality. Instead, they zero in on ordinary working people — drivers — as the problem and support dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into dubious projects that operate on the assumption that if we can just figure out how to eliminate drivers from the equation, poof, we’ll be able to leapfrog the hard political work of developing sustainable transportation. Those who question the wisdom of the driverless vision, who ask whether it wouldn’t be smarter and safer to make sustainable people-centered investments in technology, need to make their voices heard. We’ve let automobile assemblers and tech companies take the wheel for far too long.
drwisdom1 (1 month ago)
Back when I was young the goal was flying cars. Perfecting self-driving technology is a little bit easier than that.
TopSecretAgent (1 month ago)
self-driving systems could be a mainstream thing only if the supercomputers will work in micro scale. other than that they'll continue to hanging around as a fancy cruise controls.
Joe Schmoe (1 month ago)
it's not that they haven't done it yet, it's that the law prohibits you from removing your hands from the wheel. Until the law is changed we won't see driverless cars
Ëë Mage (1 month ago)
I would take any autonomous vehicle over a driver and their phones.
Ëë Mage (1 month ago)
@jan simonides Exactly, thank you!!
jan simonides (1 month ago)
@Ëë Mage 23.000 driver deaths source https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/Files/resources/experience-studies/2018/us-motor-deaths.pdf
Ëë Mage (1 month ago)
@jan simonides Does not matter what you want here, more than 10 private companies are using our roads for testing in the past 8 years. Time to take humans out of our transportation system, we are killing each other by the thousands.
jan simonides (1 month ago)
Do it on your private road then! I don't wan't to see locked computer as a truck driver!
Eliad Buchnik (1 month ago)
better do it well than rush it and put incomplete system that would do harm. if it takes 5 years to develop lets wait, if it takes 10 years so be it.
jan simonides (1 month ago)
They had better not do it.
Ray Jones (1 month ago)
we need 5g first, give it ten years
Xanthopteryx (19 days ago)
Why? You can not be Level 5 with 5G.
Let's Drive Somewhere (1 month ago)
Why is it that testing an intelligent automated driving system isn’t supported but teen drivers that have no idea what the hell they are doing is perfectly fine? I had no idea what I was doing when learning to drive at 16 but now I’m a decent driver. Why is there opposition for self-driving cars to learn?
Sun Li (1 month ago)
Chrysler makes terrible cars
Aleks Seb (1 month ago)
Over 37,000 people die in car crashes each year. Every 16 minutes, a car accident occurs that results in death. I think self-driving cars will have better results than this, even if there are a few accidents.
jan simonides (1 month ago)
@Aleks Seb The overall driver death rate for all 2014 and equivalent models during 2012-15 was 30 deaths per million registered vehicle years. Elementary school math : 1.000.000 cars 30 dead drivers per year 1.000.000 : 30 = 33.333 years You would have to drive your car for 33.333 years to get dead statistically. Source : https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model
jan simonides (1 month ago)
@Aleks Seb Your number 37.000 is BS. Those are all deaths in the traffic, including self-murderers killed by the train. This number has nothing to do with cars. You are nothing but a useful idiot of the driverless propaganda. 500.000 Americans die from smoking, 300.000 obesity, 88.000 alcohol, 128.000 hobby/sports/work accidents, 60.000 drugs, 35.000 firearm accidents - why don't you care? There are 3.000.000 deaths in the USA yearly.
Aleks Seb (1 month ago)
@jan simonides Go back to school. You neither know how to punctuate nor calculate. According to your calculations a person has to drive 33,000 years to have a car accident that results in death. The whole car industry is less than 200 years; therefore, not a single person should have died due to a vehicle accident. Why don't you leave the statistics to professionals and go read some articles on this. The statistics I have stated are straight up from professional sources, google it.
jan simonides (1 month ago)
there are ovšer 3,22 trillion driven miles in the USA per year. If you drove 15.000 miles yearly, you would have to drive your car for 6.000 years to get into a fatal traffic accident. 3.220.000.000.000 : 15.000 : 37.000 = 5.800 Do you get it ? Driving your car is one of the most secure activities you can do! Even being in your bathroom is more dangerous than driving your car. However, those 40.000 are all deaths including plane, train, boat, bicycles, motorcycle, pedestrian deaths., not all of them have something to do with cars. (next Musk-lie) The overall driver death rate for all 2014 and equivalent models during 2012-15 was 30 deaths per million registered vehicle years. 1.000.000 : 30 = 33.000 You as a driver of a personal car would have to drive for 33.000 years to die in an accident.
Rex H (1 month ago)
Google did just take the backup driver out of their cars, though.
Nata Zena (1 month ago)
Test those cars in Jakarta. If those cars survive, we all can actually use it.
Cpt woot woot (1 month ago)
Oh yeah self driving cars people praising it! Woooohoo! Just wait until your jobs are gone let's praise it more 🙌 let's enjoy self driving cars and add more people unemployed from work!
michael hines (15 days ago)
Cpt woot woot they want every one to have to stand in soup lines I guess.
Ranjit singh bhamra (1 month ago)
have you thought for jobless drivers.....how they would survive ...
undogmatisch (1 month ago)
There're still some unsoled questions, that are not of pure technologic nature. There's for example an important ethical question. How should a car react, if it would either run over a group of five older ppl. or a young mother with her baby. Who has the right to decide over an algorithm that decides about life and death?
Will (1 month ago)
Tesla self-driving happen with their very very limited hardware is dumb. They don't really have test driver they only only thing they only test they only do if only after something happen. I am SUPER amazed that @CNBC did not look into Botride that is Currently Active and in CA giving rides to the public and is doing pretty well. Shows how well some of the media is not following along with the industry. I could go on forever. But ya not bad at cover miles and testing. How different companies are trying to proof that their doing good.
Will (1 month ago)
And I like how Waymo wasn't much in here. They've fluffed there numbers is pretty questionable to me.
Speedy (1 month ago)
As long as they share the road with human drivers, it won’t work. What about when it snowing
Tsingjen Sue (1 month ago)
Conclusion: China has a huge market, willing to lead the AI technology, and the development of self driving, thanks all partners, make world greenly and friendly. Biggest contribution: Tesla car
electricra1n (1 month ago)
This was a really good video showing where we are at. In essence still developing and not ready... As one in the computer science industry, I wish CNBC would get a bit more into the "brains" or "AI" part of self driving cars, as there is widespread misunderstanding or gaps of knowledge of so called "AI" within and without this industry. The general public and lawmakers deserve to know the underlying fundamentals of this technology and the risks involved. The self driving car industry is keen on hiding, denying, or underplaying the underlying flaws of an AI based self driving car. I'm going to generalize and simplify things significantly to keep the focus on the impact. So underneath the buzzword Artificial Intelligence as it is currently, is simply a learning "program" or algorithm that makes its own decisions. It needs to make mistakes in order to learn and to make better decisions. This is implemented using a "training algorithm". The term for this learning technique is called reinforcement learning. You can learn more about reinforcement learning in detail online or in books; the idea is nothing new and has been around for at least a decade. So the way it works is much like how a child would learn through knocking over a vase that it is an outcome that is quite undesirable. The same type of process needs to happen for these "self driving cars". These cars need to hit things in order to get better at not hitting things. Which in the video they allude to through the use of simulation. Researchers developing these cars do have a degree of control to try to coax the AI into doing what they want, but in the end these machines are not pre-programmed to do what we want them to do. In fact these cars are independent decision makers. What everyone deserves to know is that these self driving cars are not yet prepared for every traffic situation possible in this world. Which is why companies are testing them on real roads, but sooner or later these "15 year old barely licensed" self driving cars are bound to cause accidents. And many many accidents need to happen whether in real life or not before these machines get really "good" at driving in our world.
H T (1 month ago)
It's a miracle if we ever have driver-less cars that are better than average drivers. I'm talking about normal cars for normal people, not special made test cars. I think for self-driving cars for the masses, the road, the infrastructure must be heavily altered in such a way that supports self-driving cars.
unebonnevie (1 month ago)
The US govt, the car companies, insurance industry, car repair industry, and oil companies use transportation as their fortune via taxation and control! Electric cars and self-driving cars are a threat to these greedy institutions!
jan simonides (1 month ago)
They are threat to me as a client.
unebonnevie (1 month ago)
Auto insurance companies are thieves! They will lose insurance premiums!
tung2tung (1 month ago)
It's an infrastructure issue not the car. The roads have to be fitted with sensors themselves and mechanisms to physically pull the car in line if it goes off. Self driving needs information and it can only get it from other cars or other devices to know what's happening ahead of them, where it's going, etc. All of this requires a lot of energy too, and that's a huge issue in of itself.
John Gibson (1 month ago)
This can only be truly safe in an environment where EVERY vehicle is self driving. When shared with vehicles driven by humans, anything can happen. I just can't see this ever working properly. Whose at fault when someone is injured or killed? And also.......most people actually like driving. Is there any market demand for such technology? I will never buy such a vehicle, and would rather just walk, cycle or rail it. The mere idea of this folly bothers me imensely. They will be a nightmare for legislaters trying to keep up with the technology. They really should just treat us like adults.