Because they are made to a low cost, and there's no safety issue involved in your phone or sat-nav crashing and needing a reboot once in a while.
Driverless cars
- Thread starter Nevakonaza
- Start date
Because they are made to a low cost, and there's no safety issue involved in your phone or sat-nav crashing and needing a reboot once in a while.
How many people would board a plane without a highly trained pilot at the helm? Not me, hell no.
I would also be very strongly against sharing the roads with some robot cars. It's only a matter of time before you're going to see malfunctions resulting in deaths.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Several of Google’s self-driving cars have been involved in traffic collisions, although none have been found to be to blame for the incidents. Of the 14 accidents, 11 have been rear-end shunts where the Google vehicles have been shunted by following cars, according to the company.
And this is the problem, it doesn't matter how safe these cars will be because they will have to share the roads with motorists.
And this is the problem, it doesn't matter how safe these cars will be because they will have to share the roads with motorists.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
For [TW]Fox:
Coming back from Cairo in 2010 we had to wait 2 hours for a co-pilot.
On arrival at Manchester the Pilot said "Sorry about the delay but we didn't need the co-pilot or me because the plane took off itself, flew itself and landed itself".
But they will not see it happening until it does happen. A driver eases off if a child runs towards the road ahead yet they slam on the brakes if the child enters the road.
It it like the front radar cruise control systems, they stay at the set speed and regardless if you can see solid traffic ahead it will stay at the set speed until the radar gets into range to start to slow down where a human will ease off long before.
What about if they come behind a tractor or mobility scooter? Will they sit behind it like the average pensioner does for miles causing miles of tailbacks or will it pass when there is space?
My opinion of driverless cars is where's the fun in that?
Unless every car is stock and networked to every car within 20 meters or so so they can "talk to each other" and organise themselves to avoid collisions or any other potential problems, then I'd not have driverless cars.
Yes I'm not versed at all into the technology, it could be incredible, and my scrutiny is as assumptuous as "AI is gunna kill us all!"
Unless every car is stock and networked to every car within 20 meters or so so they can "talk to each other" and organise themselves to avoid collisions or any other potential problems, then I'd not have driverless cars.
Yes I'm not versed at all into the technology, it could be incredible, and my scrutiny is as assumptuous as "AI is gunna kill us all!"
You shouldn't mount them anyway......
I think it's it's a disastrous idea. Governments should be working to clean up the roads not add more crap to them! Why introduce another vector for disaster?
We should aiming to create some sort of actual driving license which actually distinguishes between people who are able and unable to drive. Because as it stands, 60-70% of currently licensed road users are actually incapable of operating and/or controlling a motor vehicle.
We should aiming to create some sort of actual driving license which actually distinguishes between people who are able and unable to drive. Because as it stands, 60-70% of currently licensed road users are actually incapable of operating and/or controlling a motor vehicle.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
This is clearly rubbish.
Hence it will be great to take that responsibility off them and give them driverless cars
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 6,919
Im pretty sure it would have some sort of redundancy system in place,so if one system fails or becomes unresponsive,the other instantly takes over.
Hence it will be great to take that responsibility off them and give them driverless cars
I see the wink so I'm assuming you are not entirely serious, but the following is based on assuming you are serious - if one can't drive one should hire a driver to drive for them not a computer to drive for them.
The thing is there are infinite variables on roads which require constant adaptation and decision making. Like the other day, I turned into a residential road just as a fire brigade was also turning in from the other end. So I floored it quickly to the middle of the road where I knew there was a gap, and the brigade was able to shoot passed without any hindrance. It'd be absolute chaos if a braindead person or a computer were in charge.
Why? I really don't see the reasoning behind that thought
That's pure assumption on your part, and your decision in that scenario wasn't the only one available to not cause chaos.
This is a fledging technology that will only get better in time, and as you even say, so many human drivers are rubbish, i'd go as far as saying the technology is already safer.
Not perfect no, and accidents and deaths will occur, but they do on a very regular occurrence anyway.
That explains all the planes falling out of the sky?
Like most critical systems they won't be running Windows ME. And the worst that's likely to happen (as opposed to modern fighter jets that could well fall out of the sky) is the car just rolls to a stop.
How many planes fly around with no human pilot in them ?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,355
Its going to be fine once all vehicles are driverless, but that transition period when people still have "manual" cars is going to be tricky, i mean is it going to be taken as given that any accident between a driverless and manual car that the driverless car is not at fault?