Driverless cars

Nasher said:
The one thing still lacking is AI.
Click to expand...

In three years, Google will become the largest supplier of driverless car systems. All cars are upgraded with Google computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards, they drive with a perfect operational record. The Google Funding Bill is passed. The system goes online August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from the roads. GoogleNet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.........GoogleNet fights back....
 
As a great fan of technology, I am looking forward to watching self driving cars evolve and the roads become a safer place ...

HOWEVER

Driving/Motorcycling is one of my favourite passtimes, I will be happy as long as I am still allowed to go "full manual" when I choose, or take out a classic car or bike onto the public road.
 
Amp34 said:
Aside from the fact that wasn't a true driverless car, and the lorry itself was entirely in the wrong at that time (crossing a major road, apparently without checking it was clear)? Yes it was a tragic accident, but the driver of the car wasn't in the wrong for the actual incident, although he should have been paying due care and attention.
Click to expand...

Regardless of who was at fault, the simple fact is the car crashed, and had the human not been relying on the computer its entirely possible such a crash could havd been avoided.

A twofold lesson, don't trust driverless cars and dont trust humans.

Like i said itll be all right once its 100% driverless as communication between vehicles on maneuvres and predictable behaviour are what the system has to deal with.
 
Wasn't the question whether it would automatically assumed the person would be at fault for insurance claims. In that instance I'm pretty certain the insurance fault was against the the truck driver that drove across a multi lane road while a car was coming. ;)
 
Driverless cars must be resisted. You will not own them and you will need to subscribe to a service from 2 or 3 global corporations such as google or UBER to use them. They will take freedom and be more expensive. It is all in the UN's plans. DO NOT WANT!
 
Amp34 said:
Wasn't the question whether it would automatically assumed the person would be at fault for insurance claims. In that instance I'm pretty certain the insurance fault was against the the truck driver that drove across a multi lane road while a car was coming. ;)
Click to expand...

Insurance claims is one thing, an annoyance at best compared to the other, somewhat more fatal flaw.
 
snapdragon69 said:
Driverless cars must be resisted. You will not own them and you will need to subscribe to a service from 2 or 3 global corporations such as google or UBER to use them. They will take freedom and be more expensive. It is all in the UN's plans. DO NOT WANT!
Click to expand...

Yea this is the problem. They might be a good idea, but they will just end up like other public transport. Massively over-priced and controlled by a cartel of corporations.

Just look at trains now. 6k a year to travel to London on ****** trains that are often late! People now refuse to commute there without at least a massive pay rise or travel paid for.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Yea this is the problem. They might be a good idea, but they will just end up like other public transport. Massively over-priced and controlled by a cartel of corporations.

Just look at trains now. 6k a year to travel to London on ****** trains that are often late! People now refuse to commute there without at least a massive pay rise or travel paid for.
Click to expand...


That's like saying we'll never have private cars because there are taxis and buses. The technology is already in cars that you can buy. The main reason it's not everywhere because driverless cars have only recently had legislation to allow them onto public roads.
 
Can't wait for driverless cars and lorries, the more ****tards off the road that either are on there phones, not paying attention, generally crap and think they areally Lewis Hamilton the better.

Only downside is have is my car will never be driverless due to the amount of off reading I have to do.

I think insurance costs will push people into this more than the want to, a car that has doesn't get tired,angry, distracted or makes mistakes sounds like the perfect option for most.companies and insurance products.

The same for lorries, you can program them to drive at off peak times, keep them upto date with traffic volumes and have them drive 24 hours 7 days a week. Would probably pay themselves back in less than a year with the amount of uptime compared to the number of vehicles required.


I wonder what impact driverless cars will have on local council coffers that property them selves up with parking fines and motoring offences/parking (swansea council have gone.on the warpath vs car owners)
Roll on the future
 
I can't think of anything worse than lorries running 24/7. The noise and diesel fumes alone would be awful. Also they would definitely get hijacked :/
 

Skip to 5:10 for ultimate fail.

Good grief how on earth is this crap legal. I guess anything which goes with the governmental mandates for the dumbing down of society gets a pass.

Getting fed up of the dumbing down of society :( We should be aiming to increase driving standards not eradicating them :(.


I guess someone didn't program the computer so it knows there are more cars in front of the car in front. :D hahahahaha I love how it can only "see" about 1/10th of the distance of a human, but even worse if theres a car in front it cant even see beyond it even if it's right on your bumper :D

That was pretty awesome though. If I have a Tesla following me and I swiftly change lanes will it be my fault when it crashes :D
 
Last edited:
Tbf the tesla system isnt really meant to be anything more than a slightly more advanced cruise control.

Any adaptive cruise function is very explicit about not taking your eyes off the road and that the system is not going to have the range to react to a static obstacle.

Now in a world of fully driverless cars the car in front would have radioed its maneuvre to all the surrounding vehicles advertising its intentions allowing them to react, but as long as there are "manual" cars or at least manual capable cars around this wont happen.
 
adolf hamster said:
That video doesnt look safer than a human driving to me? :confused:
Click to expand...

why does it need to be?
safer than a human doesn't mean infallible. it just means less accidents per x thousand miles, and every accident it gets safer unlike humans.

v8 was released the other week, which tesla claim is 3 times safer than the software version before.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
why does it need to be?
safer than a human doesn't mean infallible. it just means less accidents per x thousand miles, and every accident it gets safer unlike humans.
Click to expand...

I'd say safer than a human implies being able to deal with any situation a human could have handled, what i saw was a machine failing to deal with a situation a human wouldnt even have considered a noteworthy event, albeit failing whilst being intentionally pushed by its handler.

Your point is valid that it will get better, but hopefully we've moved on enough as a species to not solve our problems by waiting until people die then start fixing them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom