Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Future of the Car

Posted by samzenpus on from the what-about-rockets dept.

Gandul writes "Radar, lasers, wireless radio networks and other embedded tech will enable our cars to sense faraway traffic and stop accidents before they happen. But who will be in the driver's seat?"

8 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. Duh? by cbrocious · · Score: 5, Funny

    But who will be in the driver's seat?

    Whoever's driving the car, duh.

    --
    Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
  2. Hopefully not people by bigtrike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The vast majority of accidents are caused because human beings are either incapable or unwilling to drive a vehicle safely. Because of this, we have lost many civil liberties. Due to safety concerns, the police can pull you over and search your vehicle at almost any time without real justification.

    I'd rather have robots drive.

  3. The changes that should be made by Mishra100 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I really do think they need to start focusing on a rail type system that does all the driving for us. If we finally would convert roads to a electromagnetic railway system (like the bullet train) and just program cars to drive and stop when they need, then we would have a much much better system than we have now. This completly gets rid of Car insurance, gas, 95% of death related accidents(I would have the 5% is left for cars that malfunction), drunk drivers, pollution, and many other negative aspects.
    I definitely think it would takes a lot of time to complete and would cost a ton of money. But we as citizens and as a country would save a whole lot more money having this implemented as a final solution to all of the stable and rising issues that circles around transportation.

  4. Honestly... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Honestly, I wouldn't mind that much having a car that could drive itself. You see, the problem with public transportation is that its public. Even in a cab you have that smelly driver and the dingy cab. I think there is a huge market for people who would like to buy a reasonably priced car with an automated chauffeur, which these controls will eventually amount to.

    Imagine having your own car that can drive you on its own, and you can sit in the back doing whatever you want, be it getting another hours rest on the way to work, watching a movie on the way home, fooling around, getting drunk, you name it.

    The drinking aspect alone would make this a best seller. Can you say "Designated Driver comes standard with this model!"

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  5. Flamebait? wtf? by coshx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The vast majority of accidents are caused because human beings are either incapable or unwilling to drive a vehicle safely

    This is plain truth. Most accidents are caused either because the drivers chose to drive wrecklessly and/or under the influence, or were caused simply because human reaction time is not as good as computers' reaction time.


    Because of this, we have lost many civil liberties.

    This is also true, and quite an insight. Think about random road blocks where you're tested for being under the influence even if you're NOT driving wrecklessly or even swerving. The equation is simple: am I willing to give up a little bit of my privacy to prevent myself from being killed? Generally, yes! Of course! But, if drunk driving didn't cause accidents because people weren't driving, there would be no need to pull this person over.


    Mods, please please please stop modding based on your own beliefs, and rather based on the intelligence of people's responses -- I'm going to get modded down for that, eh?

    1. Re:Flamebait? wtf? by borg · · Score: 5, Funny

      uh, excuse me sir.

      but wouldn't a driver who drove wrecklessly not be in an accident?

      --
      Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"
    2. Re:Flamebait? wtf? by bergeron76 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the outrage/hazard formula. I forget whom developed it, but it basically states that if people become more outraged about something (than the hazard the thing presents) they will be willing to give up basic civil liberties.

      Basically, if you fire enough people up about some 'thing', they will take action even if the the 'thing' doesn't pose a direct risk/hazard to them directly.

      Kind of like the war in Iraq: scare enough people and they will do _anything_ to prevent it. In the USA for example, a country of 500 million people, the odds of being killed by a terrorist attack is infantesimal. Yet here we are, giving up our basic civil liberties in droves.

      If you don't think our [US] society as become over-paranoid, try boarding a mass-transit vehicle while wearing a ski mask. You'll be stopped/searched/seized faster than you can say, "Land of the free".

      They'll say they have 'probable cause'; you'll say 'it was cold out' or possibly 'I didn't want security cameras recording my every move'.

      Welcome back to 1984!

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  6. Re:Make me. by carlislematthew · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Totally agree. I just got involved in my (first) accident with some "lady" that decided to turn left in front of me at a traffic light. She "didn't see me". She had young kids in the back of her car too - I dread to think what could have happened to them if I didn't hit the brakes FAST with my lovely ABS system. They could be seriously injured or dead right now. Stupid bitch.

    Anyway, I was going 30 and she was going about 5mph. Was she a dangerous driver? Yes! Were either of us speeding? NO!

    It seems to be the case that there are two types of dangerous drivers. First, the morons that drive recklessly, drink and drive, cut people up, etc. These people tend to *also* drive fast. The second type is a member of the "oblivious masses" that can only see things that are in front of them. To these people mirrors are odd devices that have limited use. Sometimes their motto seems to be "slow is safe!" regardless of the situation. They don't understand road rules, they make bad decisions (not deliberately - they're not reckless in a deliberate sense) and that causes accidents. The lady I hit falls into this second category. She probably thinks she's a "safe" driver because she never goes over the speed limit. Remember, "slow is safe!".

    Likewise, we can split safe drivers into two different categories - ones that stick to the speed limit and ones that don't. 60mph at night in the pouring rain may be an appropriate limit at that point in time, but it bears no similarity with that same stretch of road on a Sunday afternoon in dry sunny conditions. The speed limit is a conservative limit, given that it is not practical to have a variable limit across large sections of freeway. Just because you drive the speed limit doesn't in itself make you a safe driver.

    Finally, it will always be true that people that drive slower than me are morons, and people that drive faster than me are idiots. :)