Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars
Scroll to see replies
Original post by zhog
Yet the clue is in the word almost. Fair enough, you may be happier to do away with the human element at take-off or landing time but I just can't see it catching up. Now and forever, I'd rather place my trust on two pilots than a machine. If the auto-pilot fails, they are there as much as to deal with any other emergency situation and considering we're talking life and death here...
HGVs are too much of a load to risk for businesses, the list of concerns is endless. From the danger of having tonnes of weight travelling the roads unmanned to the worry of having them nicked, with things like having to look for parking spaces or dealing with a breakdown, there is such a pile of issues to overcome that it will always be cheaper to just employ a driver in the conventional fashion and that's the end of it.
No way, driverless cars can never be seen as safer. If humans can malfunction at times, so can they.
HGVs are too much of a load to risk for businesses, the list of concerns is endless. From the danger of having tonnes of weight travelling the roads unmanned to the worry of having them nicked, with things like having to look for parking spaces or dealing with a breakdown, there is such a pile of issues to overcome that it will always be cheaper to just employ a driver in the conventional fashion and that's the end of it.
No way, driverless cars can never be seen as safer. If humans can malfunction at times, so can they.
That's a completely irrational fear. If you were really scared about the computers failing, then you'd never be able to get on a plane today with modern fly-by-wire systems.
I don't know why it would be a risk to businesses - in fact I'm sure they'd automate as soon as they could if possible. Imagine a lorry that doesn't have a driver who needs to be paid or take rest breaks, it would be ideal. GPS tracking would tell you where it was and could guide it to a parking space/depot. For driverless cars, a computer that's rigorously tested with multiple fail-safe systems would definitely be safer than a normal driver, especially a teenager who's just passed his test.
Even if the technology isn't quite there today, it's completely defeatist attitude to say "that's the end of it", I'm sure someone was saying that at the start of every new invention.
This discussion between Tucker Carlson and Shapiro sums up the sensible position on this automation issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3E1I4lu6u0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3E1I4lu6u0
Driverless vehicles and such seem to be a pretty good innovation. To my awareness, most of the accidents with them so far has been attributed to human error on the other crash-ees? Is that the way to say it? Any way, the human drivers part. That's not to say that the self-driving vehicle can't make an error, naturally it can, but it seems as though that thus far they haven't really resulted in any serious errors themselves.
In any case, the computers running such vehicles are cold, calculating, and don't hold any bias or anything of the like to other drivers or themselves. They also eliminate the need to pay people to actually drive the vehicle and reduce fuel costs by eliminating the need for environmental control of the vehicle. I think it's a nice way forward. Though folks that lose their jobs due to that might be at ends with that opinion :_:
In any case, the computers running such vehicles are cold, calculating, and don't hold any bias or anything of the like to other drivers or themselves. They also eliminate the need to pay people to actually drive the vehicle and reduce fuel costs by eliminating the need for environmental control of the vehicle. I think it's a nice way forward. Though folks that lose their jobs due to that might be at ends with that opinion :_:
A lot of planes remain in service until removed requiring only scheduled maintenance and never suffer malfunctions or breakdowns in flight. This is because of the high degree of engineering and low tolerances in manufacturing. The things are built really, really well. This is not the case with todays cars. Lemons are common.
Self driving car have the potential to drastically lower the fatalties and property damage caused by driver error but only when their built using the same standards as aircraft as well as any technology in the roads used to guide them.
Self driving car have the potential to drastically lower the fatalties and property damage caused by driver error but only when their built using the same standards as aircraft as well as any technology in the roads used to guide them.
You are right, that is why development is needed for self-driving car technology but it won't happen with people vandalizing and damaging the vehicles in the process. I agree that vehicles aren't built with as high standards as planes but at some point, it will catch up. One of the best examples of this is Tesla.
Many people underestimate their software and how advanced it is compared to other brands and they are actually trying to improve it even further. I think self-driving car tech is a good innovation but we need less people trying to slow its development and more companies investing in the tech. After witnessing dozens of accidents because of human error, I think it is a good thing to remove that factor out of the equation.
Many people underestimate their software and how advanced it is compared to other brands and they are actually trying to improve it even further. I think self-driving car tech is a good innovation but we need less people trying to slow its development and more companies investing in the tech. After witnessing dozens of accidents because of human error, I think it is a good thing to remove that factor out of the equation.
I wouldn't want to be used as a test subject, which presumably is why they didn't ask the locals for consent. Uber, Google, Amazon etc have the money to pay stuntmen (or even randoms) to walk around on the street while their cars calculate appropriate paths. If I did happen to get hit, I would rather see the person responsible barred from driving than have to go up against the legal team of a multinational with billions on the line.
Trying to think this through, i can see in the future as cities expand and new roads are added, that there is dedicated pathways for pedestrian traffic that is well away from auto. as well away as is practical. This is so pedestrian would be safe from the glitches tha are sure to affect the computers in the autos as well as any intintional tampering from sickos wishing to do harm.
I don't know if anyone here has had to endure San Francisco traffic but there are many points where cars and people seem to mix. Even if the software is at the point that it can see the difference between a wino covered in a blanket and a sack of garbage in the gutter waiting for the santation truck, people are not going to feel safe stepping in front of a auto with no driver to look in eye to verify he sees you. Maybe Im wrong and they will get to point that they're as trusting of the technology as when when they climb aboard a plane and assume they won't fall out of the sky.
I don't know if anyone here has had to endure San Francisco traffic but there are many points where cars and people seem to mix. Even if the software is at the point that it can see the difference between a wino covered in a blanket and a sack of garbage in the gutter waiting for the santation truck, people are not going to feel safe stepping in front of a auto with no driver to look in eye to verify he sees you. Maybe Im wrong and they will get to point that they're as trusting of the technology as when when they climb aboard a plane and assume they won't fall out of the sky.
Original post by yankeedog1953
Trying to think this through, i can see in the future as cities expand and new roads are added, that there is dedicated pathways for pedestrian traffic that is well away from auto. as well away as is practical. This is so pedestrian would be safe from the glitches tha are sure to affect the computers in the autos as well as any intintional tampering from sickos wishing to do harm.
I don't know if anyone here has had to endure San Francisco traffic but there are many points where cars and people seem to mix. Even if the software is at the point that it can see the difference between a wino covered in a blanket and a sack of garbage in the gutter waiting for the santation truck, people are not going to feel safe stepping in front of a auto with no driver to look in eye to verify he sees you. Maybe Im wrong and they will get to point that they're as trusting of the technology as when when they climb aboard a plane and assume they won't fall out of the sky.
I don't know if anyone here has had to endure San Francisco traffic but there are many points where cars and people seem to mix. Even if the software is at the point that it can see the difference between a wino covered in a blanket and a sack of garbage in the gutter waiting for the santation truck, people are not going to feel safe stepping in front of a auto with no driver to look in eye to verify he sees you. Maybe Im wrong and they will get to point that they're as trusting of the technology as when when they climb aboard a plane and assume they won't fall out of the sky.
There is no way to separate cars and pedestrians like that, unless you go vertically. The two grids (with various diagonals) will have to intersect at many points. Also, there is no political way to separate the two with the reasoning of "Yup, they're dangerous but we're going to plough ahead and permit multinationals to do this anyway".
You make a good point about being able to make eye contact with drivers. Indeed, this is what cyclists are taught to do if they come up the blind side of a vehicle waiting at the lights.
Original post by yankeedog1953
Trying to think this through, i can see in the future as cities expand and new roads are added, that there is dedicated pathways for pedestrian traffic that is well away from auto. as well away as is practical. This is so pedestrian would be safe from the glitches tha are sure to affect the computers in the autos as well as any intintional tampering from sickos wishing to do harm.
I don't know if anyone here has had to endure San Francisco traffic but there are many points where cars and people seem to mix. Even if the software is at the point that it can see the difference between a wino covered in a blanket and a sack of garbage in the gutter waiting for the santation truck, people are not going to feel safe stepping in front of a auto with no driver to look in eye to verify he sees you. Maybe Im wrong and they will get to point that they're as trusting of the technology as when when they climb aboard a plane and assume they won't fall out of the sky.
I don't know if anyone here has had to endure San Francisco traffic but there are many points where cars and people seem to mix. Even if the software is at the point that it can see the difference between a wino covered in a blanket and a sack of garbage in the gutter waiting for the santation truck, people are not going to feel safe stepping in front of a auto with no driver to look in eye to verify he sees you. Maybe Im wrong and they will get to point that they're as trusting of the technology as when when they climb aboard a plane and assume they won't fall out of the sky.
If you had to have fully grade separated infrastructure, then you might as well just have metro trains like we have already - very expensive, and only a replacement for cars in large cities.
I think the computers will be able to detect pedestrians safely, or at least be much better at it than a teenager who has just passed his test. Commercial airliners are incredibly automated already, despite people saying they wouldn’t get on a aeroplane without a pilot, the last flight they went on was almost entirely flown by the computer.
your right. But the computer didn't taxi to the runway or get the plane in the air, nor did it land it although some are programmed to. Pilots know this is where **** happens and so far only a human brain can recognize or see a neg. situation, assess it, and apply the BEST remedy and ot quickly enough. No technology is perfect and there's no reason to think this one will be.
When i said people an cars may be kept seperate I meant by a few more feet than they are now. This really shouldn't be a problem. It can simply be taken into account as cities expand and build new roads.
When i said people an cars may be kept seperate I meant by a few more feet than they are now. This really shouldn't be a problem. It can simply be taken into account as cities expand and build new roads.
Original post by yankeedog1953
your right. But the computer didn't taxi to the runway or get the plane in the air, nor did it land it although some are programmed to. Pilots know this is where **** happens and so far only a human brain can recognize or see a neg. situation, assess it, and apply the BEST remedy and ot quickly enough. No technology is perfect and there's no reason to think this one will be.
When i said people an cars may be kept seperate I meant by a few more feet than they are now. This really shouldn't be a problem. It can simply be taken into account as cities expand and build new roads.
When i said people an cars may be kept seperate I meant by a few more feet than they are now. This really shouldn't be a problem. It can simply be taken into account as cities expand and build new roads.
But people will need to cross roads. I'm not that worried about a car accidentally mounting the pavement and ploughing through the crowds (though cars would need to be hack-proof as that's terrorism/mass murder waiting to happen), more that a car won't be able to recognise a person is a person in the way a human has been trained to since birth.
Original post by ThomH97
But people will need to cross roads. I'm not that worried about a car accidentally mounting the pavement and ploughing through the crowds (though cars would need to be hack-proof as that's terrorism/mass murder waiting to happen), more that a car won't be able to recognise a person is a person in the way a human has been trained to since birth.
And yet human driven cars knock down pedestrians all the time. That's why there are specific pedestrian safety standards for cars. cf Euro NCAP VRU
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ThomH97
a car won't be able to recognise a person is a person in the way a human has been trained to since birth.
I'm not sure that is what's envisaged for the near future; rather the car's lidar detects anything in its path, or anything predicted to move into its path.
Original post by Doonesbury
And yet human driven cars knock down pedestrians all the time. That's why there are specific pedestrian safety standards for cars. cf Euro NCAP VRU
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes, but you can immediately point at the individual who is responsible who will then be penalised or even prevented from driving for a period of time. You don't have to challenge the behemoth Google in court.
Original post by swelshie
I'm not sure that is what's envisaged for the near future; rather the car's lidar detects anything in its path, or anything predicted to move into its path.
But it's not going to stop for some tumbleweed is it?
Original post by ThomH97
Yes, but you can immediately point at the individual who is responsible who will then be penalised or even prevented from driving for a period of time. You don't have to challenge the behemoth Google in court.
That would be up to the behemoth insurance companies and governments. And it's the insurance companies that pay out when someone gets knocked down, not the driver.
You know there are self-driving cars already on the streets?
Original post by ThomH97
But it's not going to stop for some tumbleweed is it?
Actually yes they do stop for tumbleweed/ binbags blowing across the road. afaik that level of artificial intelligence is still decades away (to be able to differentiate discrete things) from what the car will see *a bunch of blobs essentially* at hundreds of hz resolution.
Original post by Doonesbury
That would be up to the behemoth insurance companies and governments. And it's the insurance companies that pay out when someone gets knocked down, not the driver.
You know there are self-driving cars already on the streets?
You know there are self-driving cars already on the streets?
You don't think someone gets points on their license for hitting pedestrians? What happens if the 'driver' is some code owned by a massive multinational, written by multiple coders?
Yes I do. What is your point?
Original post by ThomH97
You don't think someone gets points on their license for hitting pedestrians? What happens if the 'driver' is some code owned by a massive multinational, written by multiple coders?
Yes I do. What is your point?
Yes I do. What is your point?
Again, that's up to the government not the pedestrian.
The point is it's already happening.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- The Ethical Dilemma of Self-Driving Cars:
- Don’t want to car share due to anxiety how can I get out of this?
- Driving Test Anxiety
- My date showed up on a bicycle in central London
- Insurance is really high for new drivers
- What driving school? (E.London, Ilford) A-class-learners.com?
- Idk what i will do with my life/im a lost sheep
- Anxiety ruining my driving
- Frustrating Instructor
- So will we be banned from driving petrol cars in 2030
- Red light Camera
- My friend is rude and ignorant and he doesn't realise it
- No insurance
- What are manual driver's problems with Automatic car drivers. Are they jealous?
- What proof do i need for my driving test if im in my own car?
- Is it harder to pass in your own car
- Driving license
- How much money did you spend on your driving lessons?
- Is my anxiety chronic?
- whats better for driving?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
