How fast would you like a driverless car to go?

[seeds]

I don’t think I could ever trust a driverless car because I would be constantly wondering if today was the day when a solar flare or a faulty motherboard would create a problem with its electronics just as an 18 wheeler is approaching at 60 mph in the opposite lane.

How do the sensors react to heavy rain, or snow, or the occasional startled bird on the road, or a large insect that might splat its goo on them?
_______

These are all problems, along with many others, that will need to be addressed, except that the proponents of driverless cars are not willing to admit that they exist. When they happen the proponents will just sweep them under the rug and wave the few successes as proof that they were right.

Indeed.

And as Walker pointed out, why the big push for this?

Is it pandering to the "new app" generation where hands-on driving robs them of the time they could be using to bury their faces in their mobile gadgets? - (said the grumpy old curmudgeon as he shook his fist at the kids stepping on his lawn ).
_______

[seeds]

I don’t think I could ever trust a driverless car because I would be constantly wondering if today was the day when a solar flare or a faulty motherboard would create a problem with its electronics just as an 18 wheeler is approaching at 60 mph in the opposite lane.

How do the sensors react to heavy rain, or snow, or the occasional startled bird on the road, or a large insect that might splat its goo on them?
_______

Exactly. Coroners will have a new box to check. Cause of death: Glitch.

Yes.

Or this...



...being the defendant in a case of vehicular manslaughter.
_______

[Arising_uk]

Indeed.

And as Walker pointed out, why the big push for this? ...

I guess it's just because they can and such a system would be better at traffic management than people. But maybe in America its because they kill about 30,000 a year compared to say the UK's 1500. Even adjusting for population the average American appears incompetent as a driver although I have no idea how as in the main they just have straight lines to negotiate. Maybe that's the problem? That and driving on the wrong side.

Is it pandering to the "new app" generation where hands-on driving robs them of the time they could be using to bury their faces in their mobile gadgets? - (said the grumpy old curmudgeon as he shook his fist at the kids stepping on his lawn ).
_______

And why not.

[seeds]

Indeed.

And as Walker pointed out, why the big push for this? ...

I guess it's just because they can and such a system would be better at traffic management than people.

When thinking of the near impossible logistics of this new “system” ever coming into being (full scale) in our or our children’s generation, it all just sounds like wishful thinking.

Not to mention a frivolous distraction from the impending existential crisis of what seems to be the inevitable collapse of the world as we know it.

I don’t mean to be sounding all doom and gloom, but considering the morons in charge of our governments...

(especially the U.S. – dear lord, what an embarrassment )

...I feel like we are having this discussion in a large meeting room on the 80th floor of one of the Twin Towers on the morning of 9/11, with a nagging feeling that something bad is about to happen as I reach for that last doughnut.

The point is that in just a few short moments, plans involving fun futuristic cars that could potentially lead to better traffic management will be completely irrelevant.
_______

[thedoc]

I guess it's just because they can and such a system would be better at traffic management than people.

Bullshit, computer programs are written by humans and they can be no better than a human driver. A programmer doesn't know everything and can't include everything into the program. A human operator of a motor vehicle can be creative in a new situation where a program can only respond to a set program of situations, and if the situation falls out of the range of what the programmer has anticipated, the car will not know what to do. It only applies as long as the traffic behaves as anticipated.

[Arising_uk]

Bullshit, computer programs are written by humans and they can be no better than a human driver. ...

Of course they can. In reaction times, analysis and the fact that they should be able to communicate with all the other cars they'd be much better.

A programmer doesn't know everything and can't include everything into the program. ...

That's not how these are being coded. Effectively we are producing 'senses' for a car, think insect.

A human operator of a motor vehicle can be creative in a new situation where a program can only respond to a set program of situations, and if the situation falls out of the range of what the programmer has anticipated, the car will not know what to do. ...

Well it won't 'know' anything but will just react to the situation much as humans do. You can weight the response how you like and that is a question for ethics but I think this will be coming although not that soon as like medical expert systems the lawyers raise good points about culpability that the makers might decide are to costly and risky to bear.

It only applies as long as the traffic behaves as anticipated.

Which surely would be much better if all are automated and communicating.

[Walker]

Bow down before the ones you serve, your cells must get what they deserve
http://www.atimes.com/article/bow-one-s ... t-deserve/

In ways that we’re only just beginning to understand, our body and brain, from the cellular level upwards, have already built a model of the world that we can apply almost instantly to a wide array of challenges. But for an AI algorithm, the process begins from scratch each time. There is an active and important line of research, known as “inductive transfer,” focused on using prior machine-learned knowledge to inform new solutions. However, as things stand, it’s questionable whether this approach will be able to capture anything like the richness of our own bodily models.

[thedoc]

Bow down before the ones you serve, your cells must get what they deserve
http://www.atimes.com/article/bow-one-s ... t-deserve/

As I have said before, there are more problems than solutions, and the solutions are not fast in coming, but the proponents want to ignore them no matter how many lives it costs.

[Arising_uk]

Interesting though that link was it had bugger all to do with automated cars as that's not the way they are programming them.

With respect to the dead, I doubt they'd introduce these systems until they're pretty sure they work well and to be quite honest I doubt they could be much worse as 30,000 a year die on American roads so I hardly think lives cost is the issue. Although maybe you could spend the money on teaching your citizens how to drive safely as they are apparently incapable of doing so.

[Walker]

Bow down before the ones you serve, your cells must get what they deserve
http://www.atimes.com/article/bow-one-s ... t-deserve/

As I have said before, there are more problems than solutions, and the solutions are not fast in coming, but the proponents want to ignore them no matter how many lives it costs.

- The concept of a driverless car is a Frankenstein monster.

- What this mean is, the concept of a driverless car is a patchwork of concepts created for profit and control.

- A driverless car is not progress.

- It’s coo-coo.

- Human-controlled cars were created out of necessity, namely, Manhattan and its ilk was sinking under the weight of caca.

- As with windmills, there is no need for driverless cars.

[Arising_uk]

...
- Human-controlled cars were created out of necessity, namely, Manhattan and its ilk was sinking under the weight of caca.

- As with windmills, there is no need for driverless cars.

That is funny but contrary to popular(American) belief America did not invent the car nor was there any need for them. Windmills appear to be needed nowadays.

[Walker]

...
- Human-controlled cars were created out of necessity, namely, Manhattan and its ilk was sinking under the weight of caca.

- As with windmills, there is no need for driverless cars.

That is funny but contrary to popular(American) belief America did not invent the car nor was there any need for them. Windmills appear to be needed nowadays.

Neither did the Japanese invent the quartz watch, but look who cornered the market.

Manhattan cornered the horse hockey market, and from the compost arose, Detroit, to only quickly crumble towards entropy, ravaged by political give-aways, while Japan once again corners a middle-class market.

Windmills on cars. Right. Stupid idea.

[Arising_uk]

Neither did the Japanese invent the quartz watch, but look who cornered the market.

Manhattan cornered the horse hockey market, and from the compost arose, Detroit, to only quickly crumble towards entropy, ravaged by political give-aways, while Japan once again corners a middle-class market. ...

Nothing to do with political giveaways and much to do with American industry not listening to one of their own, W. Edwards Deming. Of course it helped that America had destroyed Japan's industrial base and then rebuilt it in fear of the Soviets.

Windmills on cars. Right. Stupid idea.

How about electric cars powered by wind-generated electricity.