Deaf people can already own cars. I am not sure what you are on about. Maybe it is different in other countries or something. The blind though, they could get some real use from a driverless car.
2 Likes
That was the joke :). I'm legally blind and think this is a great breakthrough, but the bus is still cheaper :).
Edit: I'm blind and drive all the time /jk
TL,DR: I'm somewhere in the middle, because like everything there are things that make it a good thing to have, but at the same time there are other things that make it not so appealing and makes me want to avoid the matter altogether.
As many problems this could solve (drunk driving, the disabled being able to get around, ect) it probably could create problems as well. I cannot stand all of the garbage that is put into cars that puts a computer between the moving parts and the part in the cabin, it creates problems where there probably should be (I have been dealing with a faulty ABS for a few years now, and it is extremely annoying).
Speaking of problems, when something goes wrong with cars a good portion of people today have nearly no idea when something is wrong with their car. I remember knowing nowhere near as much as I know now about cars before I started driving, what of those who are in the same boat? Not as many people will have half a clue what might be causing that random grinding noise when they're watching YouTube/Netflix/ect. I realize that there are sensors that watch these things, but oftentimes they're really not reliable majority of the time.
This brings me to the part that I find the most annoying about cars today. There is nothing more mind-boggling than what the manufacturers put inside the cabin as is. My personal example is the 2015 Chevy Silverado 1500 LT. There is a TOUCHSCREEN RADIO in that thing, which makes no sense whatsoever. With just buttons and knobs it's no problem just kinda feeling around for the radio preset buttons, but with the touchscreen forget it, you're better off using the buttons on the steering wheel to scroll through the stations (not that I listen to the radio, but still). Without someone at the wheel, I would guess that this could have room to expand without much thought whatsoever, could probably end up seeing some cars with options for gamers in them (which I suppose could be cool).
Also, in all unseriousness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R4KJAGqd1Q
In terms of getting me home safe after a night out I'm all for it, but I personally like driving. During those long trips though it might be nice to just read a book or play on my 3DS, something not too distracting that I couldn't look up and make assessments from, but not so monotonous as having to drive for extended periods of time.
1 Like
I'm ready for a car with the option. I sometimes enjoy driving, and other times it's a chore. It'd be nice to pop it on in traffic or during a tedious drive. It would also save you cab money, or the need for a designated driver when you're at the bar. Though I'd still like the option to take a nice drive in the country on a warm summer day, or drive around a new city to learn the layout.
Basically treat it like cruise control, with basic safety features present even when it's off (collision avoidance, blind spot monitoring etc). Best of both worlds.
I think despite the driverless car, I'm going to move to Boston and just take the bus. Yeah, it would be cool... but the bus is cheaper. I see no (get the pun) reason as to get one unless you live within a rural society. Plus I really need the exercise.
1 Like
I think they will happen faster than we think they will. They've existed for a while now and the technology is only getting better everyday. Insurance companies will love them as well, because after all, the car doesn't have to be perfect, it just need to be better than a human, and statistically speaking this holds true. Take google's self driving car's for example
If you spend enough time on the road, accidents will happen whether you’re in a car or a self-driving car. Over
the 6 years since we started the project, we’ve been involved in 11
minor accidents (light damage, no injuries) during those 1.7 million
miles of autonomous and manual driving with our safety drivers behind
the wheel, and not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident.
Here is an article by Google's director of self driving cars, it's pretty interesting.
Human error is at stake, not the cars driver error causes 94% of all crashes http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/812115.pdf as you can see in this pdf
So, if you go a head and put together a quite convincing advertisement for self driving cars THAT RELIES ON GOOD STATISTICS, people will jump on it. Why, because people like this shit, its cool. And the only reason they are really afraid is because they think the car will fuck up. But they should be more concerned with humans fucking up. And I think someone will soon sell this to the general public.
I think electric cars will become mainstream before driver-less ones
Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Technologically the driver-less ones are already there. The same isn't said for electric ones because the manufacturing scale needed for the batteries of the size and capacity that is needed is not viable. Nor are they environmentally viable (extremely toxic). And all that crap about the sustainable batteries? Until they are economically viable they aren't going to work either
Well, driver-less cars will have a tough time becoming legal because of all the laws and regulations on vehicles, but we will see, i hope that the gasoline powered vehicles would soon die out tho
Alright, I am going to try to tackle a good number of points that you made in the post as far as opposition to driverless cars.
First of all, you have to realize that the most common point of failure is between the driver seat and the steering wheel. People are dumb, ignorant, lazy things. Removing human error will significantly reduce the number of accidents on the road. The same thing happened in factories. Programs don't get tired. Programs don't have off days. Programs don't get distracted. Programs aren't human. So long as the hardware and software are sound, it will keep doing the right thing EVERY time. That of course hinges on reliable hardware (sensors and computers) and software. We have seen that computers are fully capable of running for extended periods of time without an issue if set up right. Hell, computers run the infrastructure of damn near everything. That said, the hardware and software do need to be maintained just like a computer does and just like a car does in order to make sure that everything will continue to function properly. After those assumptions are made, I don't really see any down side to driverless cars.
Now for the reality of it. New tech doesn't work right. There is a reason that there are betas and that people often wait until the second generation before buying. Things mess up. New tech always has kinks. Usually, a kink in the tech means that you will need to RMA something or maybe make a recall. With driverless cars, a kink could mean the difference between life and death for someone and that could determine how the public sees the whole thing. The stakes are much raised. If things go smoothly, then I could really see it being heralded. If things go poorly (statistically, or just to the eyes of the layman), then they will be demonized. The companies that are trying to roll this stuff out know this. They know the stakes of the first generation of things here, they understand PR. Because of this, I think that we won't see as many issues as we tend to see with other tech. This isn't an ipad here. This is automobiles.
And as far as putting tech in the cabin, in front of the driver...... I couldn't agree more.... to an extent of sorts. Having a touch screen device is stupid, I think. It REQUIRES that the driver take his eyes off the road. He can't do it by feel and isn't likely to be able to do it by memory either. Things like that are dangerous and stupid, imo. HOWEVER, I think that doing something like a hologram on the windshield could be the answer. Voice control to keep hands free, and hologram on the windshield to keep eyes on the road and we are set. That said, the potential for grand failures is definitely there with a set up like that. And it would need to be heavily regulated either by the government, a board of sorts within the automobile world, or by the individual manufacturers. It is possible to have a windshield hologram set up so that it is literally impossible for it to malfunction and obstruct the view of the driver. It is possible to have it set up so that it only does things that help to keep the drivers attention on driving (ie navigation controls, radio controls, AC controls, etc which would otherwise require him to look away and are basically required in any modern car anyway). But the possibility for fear mongering is definitely there, and the chance of being demonized by the public for endorsing something so "dangerous" is also there, so I doubt that any company would really want to head in that direction too much. The trade off isn't really worth it. Meanwhile, no one bats an eye when they basically put an ipad in front of the driver. sigh People don't really see what is actually dangerous and what isn't. It is all about public perception, and the public is dumb as fuck.
2 Likes
I would be interest to know; if it would be illegal to be drunk in a driverless car. Could you get a DUI, since you are not the one driving? I do not think so. But I'd like to hear your thoughts.
As with the discussion that Logan and Wendell have had on the Tek, it is possible to make things like this offline. The amount of computation that is needed for a driving program like this is likely not very much. Considering the advancements in technology and computation as of late, I don't see why it would be impossible to have a driverless car be entirely offline. Albeit, online, it could use the company's database for quality assurance stuff and data collection which could be used to improve things like the gps and the "AI". If no companies are willing to make an offline version of a driver program like I am talking about, I am sure that the open source community will get one up and running not too long after the corporations do.
As for the legality of the the drunk thing: In the first stages of things, I assume that it would be required that a capable driver be able to take control of the vehicle in the case of an emergency. That requirement MAY go away as things develop and as the public starts to trust these things more. That said, if no one is in the driver's seat, it is likely that either you would get a ticket for reckless endangerment or the car would simply refuse to start, and then if you are in the driver's seat drunk and do happen to get pulled over, then I would see you getting a DUI. As it stands, you can get a DUI for being parked with the keys in the ignition (ie sitting in a parking lot listening to the radio while waiting for someone to come pick you up or something), so I don't see why you couldn't get a DUI for being the drunk "driver" of a driverless car.
I don't like it, because it will take away something that I find fun, but unfortunately the pros outweigh the cons, so it will happen, and human-driven cars will be made illegal because the risk of putting humans in charge will be deemed an unnecessary one.
Driverless cars will need to be tamperproof in order for the system to be safe, and not just the on board computer but the sensors that feed into it as well. This is bad because 1.) If you can't take it apart you don't really own it. and 2.) the amount of self car maintenance will be minimal, meaning that you will have to pay someone to do any serious work to the car. Also, related to the second point, these things are obviously going to need software updates (for changes in road rules for example), so car manufactures will be able to determine when the car has reached EOL, because they can just stop providing updates for it, forcing you to go ab buy a new car even if there is nothing physically wrong with it. It will be the pinnacle of planned obsolescence.
I actually think that is the end game, and then further. Over time human drivers will be seen as an unnecessary risk, especially when the numbers start to pile in that all accidents are caused by human and there are none that are just between driverless cars.
It may or not be. i do not think that human driven cars will become obsolete, because there will always be a need for them if even a small one. That being said lets talk about car insurance.
It makes logical sense that if a human is not driving, and there is no chance for an accident, then why should you pay insurance on a driverless car? At the same time, you can still drive a car, but insurance must still be a thing. I just wonder what that would do to car insurance companies. Thoughts?
I want to keep control about the car.
I dont trust electronics.
So no.
2 Likes
In some states you can get a DUI for just being in it drunk with the keys, My friend walking home from the bar while pushing his bike got a DUI. Slightly off the point my sister in law got T-Boned by a car that had it's lights off in the dark while it was really foggy and she was the one held responsable.
No, sure you might create a few jobs in china taking care of the robots, but you'll put a few million truck drivers out of work. I also don't trust a self driving robot to stop in the road before a kid runs across it. All it's going to take is 1 white kid to get run over and google will go bankrupt and the self driving toaster will be banned for 20 years.
So what happens when a driverless car hits something slippery and starts to lose some control? A human driver can spot a safe spot to run off the road or a possible spot to gain traction back. I suspect a computer cannot do this.
Will a driverless car just default to a very slow speed in the winter even if the roads are salted and clear? It's not like it can tell the difference.