Driverless Cars

[Reg]

I'm not big on treating a symptom, while ignoring root cause.

No question, many parts of North America need better drivers..... starts with lack of training and meaningful standards and enforcement. As has been stated on here, you don't need much more than a pulse, to get a driver's license in some jurisdictions. Why was that allowed ?

If we are going to remove dangerous items from individual control, why stop at cars ?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out...... I'm betting that insurance will be a key factor.

Rgds, D.

I didn't suggest that we "stop at cars", safety should be an ongoing quest.

Allowing humans to control vehicles independently ...may have lacked foresight.
Trains, trolley cars, etc on rails may have been better, but of course those have only worked within cities.
The status is now "quo"; Technology has progressed to a point where opportunities are before us.
Insurance business interests ...I suppose they will focus more toward manufacturers for faulty algorithms, incomplete or out of date data, etc. they will focus away from policies that protect indolent drivers.
Not the easy path; it has always been easier to get a dollar from each of a million people than to get a million dollars from one person.

 

[Oaktree]

It is a PROGRESSION from the driver assist "components" that we now have in Teslas, Mercedes, BMWs, etc., that are already coming down market to Tonka, Nissan, GM, Ford - - lane marker following, cruise control back off if too close, emergency braking, etc.

From those "components" to incorporation into "systems" that include GPS, real time map updates, construction, accident, congestion, even potholes of the day along the planned route.
I don't think this is an unmanageable amount of data for journeys along a planned route and routes can be re-planned en route.

I think all the enabling technologies are already THERE, public acceptance is lagging, regulation is lagging even more.

Dude, we get it. You're in favor of this technology. Not all of us are, including myself.
Thank you very much, but I can't think of a single reason why I would want a self-driving car. The "summon-a-driverless-uber-like-vehicle" when I want to go somewhere even less.
I don't really even have much use for most of the related tech they seem to be forcing on us, including everything you mentioned above.

 

[LouNY]

I can only thick of i use for driverless vehicles, after they add a dedicated lane lane to the major interstates, I might be tempted on a long trip to let computers take over if every thing in that lane was the same.
What I would much rather see then driverless cars would be a inexpensive, fast passenger trains with vehicle carrying capabilities decent dining and sleeping accomadations.
Load my pickup ride 300-3000 miles unload and enjoy the local driving and repeat.

 

[LD48750]

I can only thick of i use for driverless vehicles, after they add a dedicated lane lane to the major interstates, I might be tempted on a long trip to let computers take over if every thing in that lane was the same.
What I would much rather see then driverless cars would be a inexpensive, fast passenger trains with vehicle carrying capabilities decent dining and sleeping accomadations.
Load my pickup ride 300-3000 miles unload and enjoy the local driving and repeat.

I'd still rather drive the 3000 miles myself going the route *I* want to at the TIME *I* want to.No waiting for a government programmed vehicle to take me where the government thinks I should go at this time.
To date, I have never used a Uber or whatever & have NO intention of ever doing so.

 

[Raspy]

OK, so a handful of "golly gee technology is a killer" cases - gottit.
Against that - I haven't yet seen the results of last night's human drivers' death toll while intoxicated, distracted, unable to handle prevailing conditions (visibility, ice, etc.)
I'd take bets that it is many times more than the semi autonomous vehicle incidents though.
How many thousands (millions ?) do we have to have before we acknowledge that the existing system of human (not)controlled vehicles is so much worse ?

Exactly.

My father used to proclaim that no airplanes designed to land on land, should fly over water. And he hated flying because he was not in control. Of course, he did not know how to fly a plane and when pointed that out to him, it made no difference. It all boiled down to experiencing something new, that was not normal to him.

I agree, in that any new experience that seems dangerous can be scary.

Driving a car on the highway at 60+ MPH while passing cars going the other way just two feet away, with no barrier between, seems at first glance to be an absurd risk. Especially when we all know how easily and often people get distracted. But we all get used to it and eventually only pay enough attention to keep our car on our own side of the road most of the time, as we daydream, eat, talk on the phone, look at the scenery, carry on conversations and many other things.

I certainly don't jump on new technology, just because it's new. But I at least try not to pronounce it terrible until I look at what it really offers, or promises to offer in the future. Car seat belts were reviled by so many in the beginning. My parents declared that "the government is not going to tell us what to do" when laws were passed to wear them. They left them buckled, stuffed down in the seat, and sat on top of them. Seems pretty ridiculous now. The list of advancements and societal course corrections are endless. Many were fought tooth and nail in the beginning.

 

[Raspy]

I'd still rather drive the 3000 miles myself going the route *I* want to at the TIME *I* want to.No waiting for a government programmed vehicle to take me where the government thinks I should go at this time.
To date, I have never used a Uber or whatever & have NO intention of ever doing so.

How does the government program driverless cars to take you where it thinks you should go at the time it decides? Did you know that Uber is not a government agency?

Governments design roads and highways. Do you not use these roads and just drive out across fields, because the government decided that the road was the best path?

Do you stop on green and go on red just to prove that you are not subject to traffic regulations?

Are you tied onto an electrical grid? Or a water company? Or a sewage treatment plant? Do you buy gasoline of a specific formulation, and a specific measured quantity. Do you buy food tested by, and forced to adhere to, health regulations set by government agencies? When traveling, do you drink water that comes out of a tap? Don't try that in most of the world. If you need an ambulance or fire department, who do you call? After all, they might come and haul you away or use a fire hose in your house. It could all be a government conspiracy!

Do you also not use a phone company because they might tell you who to call and when, on a phone they pre programmed? Or they might connect through a network of cell towers that the government might also be connected to.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Wonder how a driverless car will work on gravel roads?

 

[prof fate]

There are 5 levels of autonomy - level 5 is anywhere anytime. That will likely be a long way off.

Level 4 is self-driving in LIMITED areas - and that is what Google/Uber are working on now. I live in Pgh and 2 weeks ago they put the cars back on the road (since the arizona accident) - there have been lots of news stories on it here.

They have the lidar/radar and such but also lots and lots of street mapping - learning. They stick to a small geographic area - makes sense in many ways, more density of population means more profit if you plan to lease rides. And they're limiting speed to 25mph. and daylight hours.

I cna see also a demand for hiway driving - truckers being one that could be a lot more economically efficent plus the industry is short on drivers. So who cares if a TT pokes along at 35 or 45mph but can run 24/7 vs 10 to 12 a day under human control?

 

[JasperFrank]

So the car then uploads everything you have done to the cloud to be used in marketing. Sorry I already have Facebook for that.

 

[prof fate]

Well, in gun debates with non-gun owners I ask if LIFE is what matters? If so - then limit the speed of ALL cars to 20mph.
Since cars kill more people than guns (ignoring suicide), that would save the most lives immediately - and would not violate a single law or right.

Nobody but NOBODY is in favor of that idea. So it's NOT lives that matter - it's CONVENIENCE or 'me first'. Just hit any hiway and observe the speed people are diving..55mph here and most are doing 70, 75. If ti's 65 they're doing 80. I've seen evern higher speeds on the east cost (I-95 in particular).

Why?
Why do people drive tired, drunk, etc?

lots of things could be done...but are not. How about swipe your license to start a car? No license..no driving. Or limited dirving if you cna't see at night, have a junior license, etc?

I'm not big on treating a symptom, while ignoring root cause.

No question, many parts of North America need better drivers..... starts with lack of training and meaningful standards and enforcement. As has been stated on here, you don't need much more than a pulse, to get a driver's license in some jurisdictions. Why was that allowed ?

If we are going to remove dangerous items from individual control, why stop at cars ?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out...... I'm betting that insurance will be a key factor.

Rgds, D.