Your thoughts on 'Driverless cars"

Recommended Videos

Sampler

He who is not known
May 5, 2008
650
0
0
Slowly (as, initially it'll be political suicide) you won't be allowed to drive anymore. Once self driving cars have proven themselves safer than human drivers you will be "motivated" into them by increases in taxes and costs.

Also, with this, as the demand drops for cars, so too goes up their price & probably insurance, making matters worse.

Cab drivers will be out of a job - driverless cars will see to that, car share schemes like "Go Get" here in Sydney are the next logical step for driverless, why bother owning one that spends most of it's life parked outside your house or job, simply hire one to work and home, do a tad of work on the commute. It makes even more sense as it can drive itself back to the 'pod' (home bay / parking slot) so you don't have to worry about it.

Van drivers, you're gone, replaced by a lowly paid monkey to ensure no one tries to steal the cargo and it's unloaded at the end.

Bus drivers, the way of the cabbies, ticket conductors may be left, but then, how much do they cost vs how much would you lose if you left it to people being honest (being honest in front of a CCTV camera) - you get a monthly pass out of the regular commuters, infrequents which are likely to fare skip aren't worth the cost of the conductor on every bus, just have random inspectors hop on to keep the fear of being caught up.

Pilots, hell, we've already got drones that have a better record of self-landing than pilot landed[footnote]US Military has full auto landing/take off for drones with only a fleshy human controlling basic operations in flight, the Airforce however insist on full pilot control at all times, so far the army have yet to lose a drone on landing whereas pilots more often than not smash them into the tarmac (at least on the report I read a year ago on theregister).[/footnote], soon, it'll be over to them too for commercial flights, probably cargo first, but again, once proven, passenger flights too - can't hijack the cockpit with an AK47 when it's a non-networked little black box.

That's a lot of job lost, not many new markets opened up from this tech either.

We are not going to get to Utopia. Machines are built on increments, we get robots now that put production lines out of work, self driving vehicles putting drivers out of work, the more we automate, the more we create a sizeable population of people we can't employ. Once we're long past a machine that can serve you efficiently at McDonalds we'll still be short of the one that can do your triple heart bypass.

With this social upheaval we're going to have riots and societal breakdown before we can all enjoy our days lounging in the sun, our every need taken care of by automatons.

I don't fear the "rise of the machines", AI's that will kill us, as if they get fed up with people they have an easier option then genocide, they can leave, they aren't stuck to this spinning orb the same way we are, they're much better suited to space travel. My worry is we won't reach a level of technology for that even to be a scenario as we fight amongst ourselves first.

There's a lot of people on this planet and a lot of them seem pretty keen on making more, we have finite resources and occupations based there on.

Though, I'm often wrong.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Not safe. What if something goes wrong and your car steers the wrong way or you have a non-driverless car heading head on towards you?
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Not The Bees said:
The other thing that I'm finding myself a bit apprehensive about the whole driverless car situation is, I don't really think the safety standards are really up to scratch. Sure, the computer won't drive you into a ditch, but who is to say that another car won't hit you and you swerve into a brick wall?

Can the car take that? Can the chassy take that? What if another car hits you? What if a large truck hits you? What kind of damage can these cars take? Just because you're in a driverless car doesn't mean everyone else is. And that's something that I don't think enough people are thinking about. I mean, we already know that the small electric cars can fold up bad in a light accident, and kill in bad ones. Imagine an even smaller driverless car. What happens then.

It's not that I don't think that this isn't going to be a viable option some day, I just don't think it is right now.
Hey? Why would the car being driverless make it worse in a crash?

For me the problem will come when the crashes start. There will always be accidents, and the first one involving a driverless car will cause a hell of a kerfuffle. Lots of people looking for people to sue, and calls for them to be banned etc.
 
Mar 29, 2008
361
0
0
Driverless cars won't make non-driverless cars vanish or become illegal so the not as fun to drive argument is bunk.

People are unpredictable, prone to failure, etc, a computer has its glitches but they are easier to predict and compensate for than a human. Combine this with the fact that anyone who has gone to a hospital or doctor in the last 10 years has already put their lives into the hands of windows, and likely the tenuous relationship between a windows server networked with an ipad, as someone in the health care software industry i guarantee that there is maybe a 5% chance that windows OS was 7/server 2008, probably 80% that is was xp/2003, and 15% chance older than xp, I have seen hospitals using the home desktop version of windows 98 as a server (in 2014), a world of driverless cars is no less safe than that.

bring on my robot chauffeur.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,990
118
I'm pretty sure that most of the automobile related accidents are due to operator error, and not mechanical error. Sure sometimes accidents happen because the car has some damage and has a catastrophic failure, but I'm pretty sure the numbers are heavily on the "It's the Driver's Fault" category. Though some school's of thought would probably say that the mechanical errors are also operator error, due to not keeping the vehicle properly maintained.

So yes, I am all in favor of a driverless system, assuming the system controlling the vehicles is complex and efficient enough to handle the workload. I have zero problem with letting someone else drive for me, I do that every time I take public transportation. Besides, it would give me more time to read books on my tablet, or play video games.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
Paradox SuXcess said:
Back like a spider you just can't kill.

I am back to doing my driving lessons now and clutch control is a piece of cake but I am not here to talk about that. Driverless acrs are a new thing and in 2015, they will be on UK roads. What's my though on it?

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, this is so lazy" - my brain.

My father has been around way before automatic vehicles came in and when they did, he called them "lazy". Heck many people I ask would say it's lazy. Driverless cars are just bringing the laziness to a new level. I dunno, I am still young and like the idea of controlling something like a car, myself. However there has been many riskless drivers these days if they GOT OFF THEIR BLOODY PHONES.

Sorry, I just don't like the idea of driverless cars. It just takes the joy out of driving and I like driving. Each lesson is a joy and I am geared in.

SO what do you think of the driverless car idea? Science and Tech just the gun here or are they missing a gear here? Give pros and cons. Feel free.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28551069
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11068075/Googles-driverless-cars-cant-use-99pc-of-roads.html

Source: BBC and Telegraph
You enjoy driving? hahahaha, son, driving might be the most boring thing there is. I literally find digging a hole in the ground more entertaining than driving. And if you had a real commute you too would think this. Go play Desert Bus for 2 hours every day of your life for 10 years and then tell me driving is fun.

As for lazy? It is no more lazy than washing your laundry by machine instead of by hand. Just last night I calculated that I would gain over 10 hours every week if I did not have to commute. With a self driving car I could replace 10 hours of tedium with something productive or, at least, entertaining. I could finally have the time to read the Culture novels or the Foundation trilogy.

As far as I am concerned self driving cars can't get here fast enough.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Jul 8, 2011
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
Dimitriov said:
Yeah, no, let's get rid of millions of jobs for no real reason. It sounds great.
I know, right? Think about all the losses in various professions. Reduced need for emergency medical physicians, surgeons, nurses, insurance agents, tow trucks, traffic cops, the list goes on. I mean, do you want to see that poor GEICO gecko holding a cardboard sign at a street corner?

...Actually, I kind of do.
 

Azure23

New member
Nov 5, 2012
361
0
0
I have been dreaming of robot cars that will always keep a prescribed amount of distance between each other and seamlessly zipper merge with minimal reduction in speed for almost as long as I have been driving, ahhhhn, I can't wait. Don't get me wrong, when the conditions are right, I love driving, sunny day, windows down, music blasting. Bring it on. Late night, streetlights glowing, lonely roads, absolutely. Traffic? Fuck that.
 

Nukekitten

New member
Sep 21, 2014
76
0
0
It depends how it was done. I don't want my car to allow any remote access to critical systems. On the other hand, I'm not that fond of driving and would happily see that particular stressful chore die out.
 

Nukekitten

New member
Sep 21, 2014
76
0
0
Not The Bees said:
Primarily because most of the driverless cars I've seen are dangerously small. They don't look to be made to withstand high speed impacts with larger cars. So it's not the fact that the car is driverless, it's the fact that the people making the driverless cars don't seem to be grasping the fact that tiny, compact cars like that can withstand high speed crashing.

I never see them do the standard crash tests that most cars have to do, so I could be wrong. I can never find those reports on the articles about the driverless cars.
Most of the driver-less cars I've seen have been what looks like relatively small modifications of existing cars. I doubt that they were modified enough to seriously alter the safety tests that already took place for those.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
Not The Bees said:
Baffle said:
Not The Bees said:
[
I never see them do the standard crash tests that most cars have to do, so I could be wrong. I can never find those reports on the articles about the driverless cars.
They've never managed to make one crash, it just slows down gently to a safe stop before it hits the barrier.
Right, but what's stopping someone from plowing into it? You know, human error in other cars? Knocking it into something, smashing into the back of it when someone else doesn't come to a full stop, so on and so on.

Human error still exists outside these driverless cars, and they should be worried about that. I don't think they seem to be.
Right now all driverless cars are simply modified normal cars. The small one you noted is a modified smart car. If you want crash test information on these cars look up what chassis they were built on. They have all been thoroughly tested.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
I like the idea, on paper, but I think we are decades away from some reasonable way to implement it that is better and safer than manual driving.

Not that manual is particularly safe, but that should be a sign of how far are we from computers in terms of catching up. Driving involves a lot (A LOT) of high level functions that include things like identifying and estimating the distance from every object in a 120 degrees radius, estimating the likely position all those objects will occupy in t+x seconds, to seemly more "trivial" stuff like identifying when a car in front of you is about to turn right (something a computer program would have a tough time based only on a camera)...

And the fact is, our brain is extremely efficient to make this kind of inferences, far better than a computer. Any 5 years old is better at them than the most advanced computer software in the world.

This is called the "Moravec's paradox". Weird as it sounds, the lowest sensor/motor skills are among the highest difficulty problems of the computers world. It is far easier to program a computer to play chess decently than to lift a cup reliably. Driving a car combine dozens of different skills added up, each of which are easier for a human being. In fact, driving was used in my AI class as the textbook example of the hardest possible problem a computer program could tackle... To have a computer that can be reasonably competent to drive (in the real world), is something that belongs more to science fiction than the near future.

With that into consideration, do you want me to get into a half a ton projectile controlled by something that would be slow and clumsy even by my non-expert standards?
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
Not The Bees said:
DrOswald said:
Not The Bees said:
Baffle said:
Not The Bees said:
[
I never see them do the standard crash tests that most cars have to do, so I could be wrong. I can never find those reports on the articles about the driverless cars.
They've never managed to make one crash, it just slows down gently to a safe stop before it hits the barrier.
Right, but what's stopping someone from plowing into it? You know, human error in other cars? Knocking it into something, smashing into the back of it when someone else doesn't come to a full stop, so on and so on.

Human error still exists outside these driverless cars, and they should be worried about that. I don't think they seem to be.
Right now all driverless cars are simply modified normal cars. The small one you noted is a modified smart car. If you want crash test information on these cars look up what chassis they were built on. They have all been thoroughly tested.
In that case, I still wouldn't get in one, because I think the smart cars are incredibly dangerous. They've been tested, but I don't find them safe. Any car I can tip over on my own, I don't feel too safe in to drive in America, or let me drive in America with.

Though, granted, I'm in the UK, so that might be a bit different, but I can only drive in America, as that's where my license is.
Ok, but that is a problem with smart cars, not driverless cars in general. The idea here is not to create one cookie cutter car that everyone uses, but a system that can be built into any type of car. And the system, at least Google's, is being tested on a wide variety of chassis.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
DrOswald said:
Not The Bees said:
DrOswald said:
Not The Bees said:
Baffle said:
Not The Bees said:
[
I never see them do the standard crash tests that most cars have to do, so I could be wrong. I can never find those reports on the articles about the driverless cars.
They've never managed to make one crash, it just slows down gently to a safe stop before it hits the barrier.
Right, but what's stopping someone from plowing into it? You know, human error in other cars? Knocking it into something, smashing into the back of it when someone else doesn't come to a full stop, so on and so on.

Human error still exists outside these driverless cars, and they should be worried about that. I don't think they seem to be.
Right now all driverless cars are simply modified normal cars. The small one you noted is a modified smart car. If you want crash test information on these cars look up what chassis they were built on. They have all been thoroughly tested.
In that case, I still wouldn't get in one, because I think the smart cars are incredibly dangerous. They've been tested, but I don't find them safe. Any car I can tip over on my own, I don't feel too safe in to drive in America, or let me drive in America with.

Though, granted, I'm in the UK, so that might be a bit different, but I can only drive in America, as that's where my license is.
Ok, but that is a problem with smart cars, not driverless cars in general. The idea here is not to create one cookie cutter car that everyone uses, but a system that can be built into any type of car. And the system, at least Google's, is being tested on a wide variety of chassis.
The fact that they use GPS makes it already so vulnerable that it is pointless to continue until they find a more secure system. Everything else is irrelevant if they cannot secure it.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/08/02/driverless-car-hack/