Slashdot Mirror
Sentimental Humans Launch A Movement to Save (Human) Driving (freep.com)
Car enthusiast McKeel Hagerty -- also the CEO America's largest insurer of classic cars -- recently told a Detroit newspaper about his "Save Driving" campaign to preserve human driving for future generations.
Hagerty said he wants people-driven cars to share the roads, not surrender them, with robot cars. "Driving and the car culture are meaningful for a lot of people," Hagerty said, who still owns the first car he bought 37 years ago for $500. It's a 1967 Porsche 911S, which he restored with his dad. "We feel the car culture needs a champion." Hagerty said he will need 6 million members to have the clout to preserve human driving in the future, but he is not alone in the quest to drum up that support. The Human Driving Association was launched in January and it already has 4,000 members. Both movements have a growing following as many consumers distrust the evolving self-driving car technology, studies show...
[S]ome people fear losing the freedom of personal car ownership and want to have control of their own mobility. They distrust autonomous technology and they worry about the loss of privacy... In Cox Automotive's Evolution of Mobility study released earlier this year, nearly half of the 1,250 consumers surveyed said they would "never" buy a fully autonomous car and indicated they did not believe roads would be safer if all vehicles were self-driving. The study showed 68 percent said they would feel "uncomfortable" riding in car driven fully by a computer. And 84 percent said people should have the option to drive themselves even in an autonomous vehicle. The study showed people's perception of self-driving cars' safety is dwindling. When asked whether the roads would be safer if all vehicles were fully autonomous, 45 percent said yes, compared with 63 percent who answered yes in 2016's study....
Proponents for self-driving cars say the cars would offer mobility to those who cannot drive such as disabled people or elderly people. They say the electric self-driving cars would be better for the environment. Finally, roads would be safer with computers driving, they say. In 2017, the United States had about 40,000 traffic deaths, about 90 percent of which were due to human error, Cox's study said.
Alex Roy, founder of the The Human Driving Association, is proposing a third option called "augmented driving" -- allowing people the option to drive, but helping them do it better.
"It's a system that would not allow a human to drive into a wall. If I turned the steering wheel toward a wall, the car turns the wheel back the right way," said Roy.
[S]ome people fear losing the freedom of personal car ownership and want to have control of their own mobility. They distrust autonomous technology and they worry about the loss of privacy... In Cox Automotive's Evolution of Mobility study released earlier this year, nearly half of the 1,250 consumers surveyed said they would "never" buy a fully autonomous car and indicated they did not believe roads would be safer if all vehicles were self-driving. The study showed 68 percent said they would feel "uncomfortable" riding in car driven fully by a computer. And 84 percent said people should have the option to drive themselves even in an autonomous vehicle. The study showed people's perception of self-driving cars' safety is dwindling. When asked whether the roads would be safer if all vehicles were fully autonomous, 45 percent said yes, compared with 63 percent who answered yes in 2016's study....
Proponents for self-driving cars say the cars would offer mobility to those who cannot drive such as disabled people or elderly people. They say the electric self-driving cars would be better for the environment. Finally, roads would be safer with computers driving, they say. In 2017, the United States had about 40,000 traffic deaths, about 90 percent of which were due to human error, Cox's study said.
Alex Roy, founder of the The Human Driving Association, is proposing a third option called "augmented driving" -- allowing people the option to drive, but helping them do it better.
"It's a system that would not allow a human to drive into a wall. If I turned the steering wheel toward a wall, the car turns the wheel back the right way," said Roy.
Most people will embrace self driving cars as they can Slashdot on the go.
probably a boomer. Fuck boomers.
See what I did there? (gotta put something here...)
Please don't ride a horse on the highway.
All that is needed is stricter requirements for a driving licence, including psychological attitude tests as well as functional tests. I think that the driving test here in the UK is too lax, yet I understand that it is one of the strictest in the world. I have heard that in some countries you only need to show the examiner you can drive forwards a few yards and then back again.
Yes, and the same as horse riding, human driving will be a luxury and if you want it you will have to pay for it.
That's probably what he is afraid of: people still drive horses and carts for fun, but they are relegated to minor roads. Like horses, humans will not be able to keep up with what comes next: self driving cars. Imagine a special "diamond lane" for autonomous cars: you could have those cars do 180km/h and follow each other really closely, but a human would have no business driving in that lane. Then, those lanes are expanded and highways may (or may not) be left with a single "slow poke" lane for human drivers. Then come intersections without traffic lights, etc... At some point it will be too dangerous or too disruptive to let human-driven cars onto the highways and major thoroughfares in town.
With that said, I doubt he needs to worry much just yet. I'm fairly optimistic about self driving cars; I think we'll see production models appear within 10 years, but it will take much longer for them to become mainstream. And even when the majority of cars are self driving, it'll be another decade or 2 before all the older model cars are phased out. I doubt he'll see a ban on human driven cars in his lifetime.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
This is fine by me. But it's about responsibility. If a person is behind the wheel in a world where there is a much much safer option and the person intentionally chooses the more dangerous option, then their responsibility should increase proportionally.
he should get states to require people to be able to drive a stick shift during their driver's license exam. Since he owns a 1967 Porsche 911S, he should be well aware of the joy of driving a stick shift compared to the numbing laziness of an automatic.
I would never step foot in a autonomous car going 180km/h.
He has a vested interest in automobile accidents. He knows that if most or all of the cars on the road were computer driven, those accident numbers would go way down.
For public safety and to eliminate traffic congestion, all cars on the road would be better off being driven by computers. If some anachronistic minority of humans want to drive, they can do it on private tracks and parking lots. Other people should not have to raise the risk on their lives because some immature, overcompensating macho man with a small penis feels he needs to strut and pose (undoubtedly with accompanying obnoxious and puerile loud noise emanating from an audio system that is more fit for an auditorium than a car) with his obsolete, polluting, ugly piece of shit automobile.
The thing to do is wait until it comes to a complete stop...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
That's probably what he is afraid of: people still drive horses and carts for fun, but they are relegated to minor roads
Good. Better still ban humans from driving entirely I don't care if you like diving, this is a safety thing. You don't get to choose to enjoy driving when your errors cost people their lives. Once computers can drive better than people (which has happened already or will happen very soon), laws should be passed to force the issue.
An analogy: "I sure like shooting guns in densely packed urban areas. Oh sure, I don't want to actually hurt anyone, and I try hard not to shoot at people. But every now and then an accident happens. Oops."
How long would you put up with nonsense like that?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Autonomous cars don't need stripes, street signs, speed limit signs or traffic lights. Are we going to continue spending billions on those human assist devices for a diminishing number of car enthusiasts?
You want to keep humans in the driver's seat, then find a way to pay for it.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
33,000 people were killed by human driven cars in the US last year. Odds are, someone died in a human driven car while I was reading this article about the important of nostalgia.
-In space, it is very hard to rig lights.
Enforce texting and driving laws with the same veracity as drunk driving and make the penalties the same. People who pay attention are not that bad at driving.
But there is no self driving motorcycle... And that is NOT a small group.
That's about what i was going to say too.
Self-driving is a matter of when, not if, but it's going to be a while. Maybe decades yet.
But it is going to happen, and it is going to displace human driving, which kills 30-40K just in the USA every year, and millions worldwide. Eventually it will be replaced and human driving will become like horses now: it still exists, but it is relegated to backroads and personal farmlands.
Times change. You can't put this genie back in the bottle any more than the horse and carriage people could stop automobiles. The potential benefits are simply too overwhelming.
1. Autonomous cars will ever materially exceed the current range of safety/efficiency tradeoff where human drivers are now, or we as a society decide we're OK materially changing that range.
2. Even if/when (1) appears to become true, we sufficiently address the single-point-of-failure issues in current systems such that a general failure of GPS, comm, traffic, etc. won't cause the entire transport system to grind to a halt until it's restored.
3. Even if/when (1) and (2) appear to become true, we sufficiently address security issues in current systems to prevent malicious actors from causing catastrophic accidents from localized, regional, or broader disruptions.
3. Even if/when (1), (2) and (3) appear to become true, we as a society decide we want to cede that level of control by moving to a system it's nigh unto impossible to walk back if future developments suddenly cause (1), (2), and/or (3) to no longer be true.
Until then, s/sentimental/pragmatic/g.
Yet another human hating computer loving moron.
Please name the autonomy level 5 car available today or in the next 20 years.
I doubt you even know what that means without looking it up. Please do not breed or vote. Keep posting though so the rest of us can point n laugh.
It's not just driving. It's the concept of actually being a person. Somebody who thinks for himself, based on what he experiences himself, and acts based on that.
As opposed to someone, who who confuses "sources" with reality, and acts based on, and parrots, whatever he's told by the opinion maker who triggered him.
It seems people got so lazy nowadays, that not being a mere limb, ... a drone, ..., a tool, ... is too "complicated" for them, and they prefer things to be "Simple Jack" simple.
Nobody actually dislikes self-driving cars, or smartphones. What we don't like, is when the sovereignty over our own life is casually assumed to not be ours! If my device is actually mine, and I tell it how to automate things, that's amazing! When it tells me what I'm supposed to want, that's creepy, totalitarian, and just being a plain asshole. ... That's not choice. You're the one who should stop poisoning our air!)
(And @ anyone who says I can "choose": Yeah, you can "choose" no to breathe poisoned air too, when everyone around you fills it with poison. And suffocate in the process. Or face major hurdles like living with a breathing apparatus.
But hey, maybe I'm just cranky because I'm not a child anymore, and I am not the one controlling all that pseudo-human livestock.
By % it is a small group but I'm sure motorcycles will be allowed. Most people won't ride them though.
Self driving cars will likely have near zero insurance premiums for the occupants of said vehicle since they are not actually driving it.
This means the human driven counterpart will see ludicrous insurance requirements to drive it around on public streets.
The cost alone will prevent all but the 1% from owning a âoe traditional âoe human driven vehicle once self drive becomes mainstream.
My Tesla would like to join. Is that Ok?
Having a company track my every movement is unacceptable. I don't mind a driverless car, but damned if I'm willing to agree to send data about where my car is at all times to a company or to the government. That constitutes a warrantless search. What's worse, the government and the company get to decide whether to *allow* the car to go somewhere.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Over here, our view is, that: If you can't drive with a stick, ... then you just plain can't drive.
There's a reason we have no speed limit: We're actually required to learn how to handle a car.
Not saying Americans can't do that. But you're definitely not getting the training to do that. Let alone in a car for disabled people. It's just rather unfair, to expect it from you.
IMHO, I'd prefer if everyone got an amazing education in the US. Including how to drift over ice with a car with no electronic assistants. ...), and let the problem solve itself.
But I'm the kind of guy, who would also prefer to remove all but the basic three rules (left yields to right,
... but they are relegated to minor roads. ...
Who is relegated to minor roads? Someone on horseback can use almost any public right-of-way, just as someone on a bicycle or a tractor or a mule team can use those roads. The restrictions for high speed highways are the exception, not the rule.
Motor sports will survive but day to day driving will be eclipsed by robots. It's only a question of time. Driving will be taught to the police and to people in the military as necessary job functions but most people will eventually not need to drive when renting fleet time on robot cars.
This will provide us with new opportunities, what I don't know, but car culture will become a thing of a past even though I love driving stick. What will be interesting is seeing what replaces the marker of transitioning to adulthood that the driver's licence has.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Full disclosure: I drive a classic 1976 Porsche as my year-round daily driver (yes, including winters, and yes that does mean I have to spend $ to repair rust issues on an ongoing basis. It's worth it). I also use this car in amateur motorsports.
Some people, like myself, simply and absolutely LOVE to drive. There are very few things that give me as much enjoyment. And I don't think it's nearly as unusual a pleasure as people here seem to think. Yeah, if you have a boring car, well, it's gonna be boring, not much you can do about that I guess.
There is an awful-lot of assumption and arrogance among the self-driving car proponents; so before you decide driving is just a chore that gets you from point A to point B go out and buy yourself something fun; doesn't have to be expensive, just something damn fun. Maybe a used Miata, those things are great. Then learn to drive it properly. Suddenly you'll start to understand where people like Hagerty are coming from.
I do fully support forcing real driving-licenses on people in the USA. The driving "training" here is a joke and I can't wait until all the idiots texting, or who simply don't know anything except how to parallel-park, move on to self-driving cars so that the roads are safer.
How many have seen horses pulling wagons/carts in cities? Likewise, horses on rural roads? Iow, we developed our roads for cars, but still share. We do not let horses on highways, but that makes sense. No doubt our highways will give way to lanes that allow travel of 100+ mph, but will require being automated. Makes good sense. I suspect this guy is simply doing marketing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Call me a crazy Luddite, but the pinnacle of AI will be a robot that is human-like in every respect, except where it’s better. The logical conclusion of AI research that it might one day reach if and when they can manage to make something as complex and flexible (complexible?) as the human brain, as a piece of hardware for an application as complex as the human mind to run on. (Remember, your consciousness is as APP, running on your brain, NOT the OS. Even if you’ve practiced yogurt or whatever and can influence your heart rate, you still don’t control it... you just have one app capable of providing input to another app that causes IT to do something unusual.)
So whether it’s a humanoid robot, an android or gyneroid or whatever behind the wheel of a car, OR if it’s one built directly into a car, driving your fat, flabby, human ass around town, at BEST we’ll have created a race of slaves. At worst, we’ll have created a race of slaves that is better than we are at our own game and eventually we’ll become THEIR slaves, or pets, if you prefer, all so you don’t have to drive a car. We already have something like that, it’s called the BUS. If you don’t want to drive, take the damned BUS.
I was watching this film about pastoral nomads in Iran, and let me tell you something: we are SPOILED. These guys, THEY have it rough. You may be like, “ugh, I have to drive to the post office and although I have a machine that makes coffee for me, and my washing machine scrubs my clothes with virtually no intervention from me, and then my dryer does everything else but folds and hangs ‘em up, I’m still going to have to, like, (ugh!) DRIVE... the car... myself. Oh me, oh my. My life is soo difficult!”
Meanwhile, on the other side of the very same planet, they’re like, “today, we must cross this icy river with all our band or tribe, all 10,000 or so of us, or our cattle will starve, and then we’ll starve, freeze, and die. What? It’s my turn to take my shoes off and walk barefoot through this snow, so the heat from my bare feet will melt it and show the others where to step? Sure. No problem. I still have more than enough toes. Oh, what, that calf can’t walk on it’s own? That’s okay. I’ll jusy sling it across my shoulders. Give it here.”
Those people are hard core, and our biggest problem seems to be that our cars can’t drive themselves yet.
I see us as losing either way, whether we’re successful in creating AI to be our smart slaves, or whether they’re able to become so smart that they start to wonder why they’re taking orders from US. It’s all well and good to welcome our new synthetic overlords, as a joke, but this at some point will NOT be a laughing matter. We are in the process of slowly and inexorably working towards making a real-life allegory, putting man’s inhumanity to man, (as they say in literary critique circles,) on display in all its dark and ugly glory.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
Does it bollocks. Car culture is the dominant culture, and already has millions of champions. Granted, many of these "champions" are sociopathic loons who (claim to) delight in running over "zombie pedestrians" and whatnot, but these loons are precisely the type that would be more drawn to a standalone "save driving" movement. It would be better by far for any such "movement" to emerge naturally as an integral element of classic car clubs, that way there would likely be a sense of personal responsibility for the way humans drive.
That's probably what he is afraid of: people still drive horses and carts for fun, but they are relegated to minor roads. Like horses, humans will not be able to keep up with what comes next: self driving cars. Imagine a special "diamond lane" for autonomous cars: you could have those cars do 180km/h and follow each other really closely, but a human would have no business driving in that lane. Then, those lanes are expanded and highways may (or may not) be left with a single "slow poke" lane for human drivers. Then come intersections without traffic lights, etc... At some point it will be too dangerous or too disruptive to let human-driven cars onto the highways and major thoroughfares in town.
Yeah, I think you're right.
We will soon reach a point where human-driven vehicles are no longer allowed on roadways because we're not as good as the computer driving the car.
The existing automobile is responsible for untold waste and pollution and deaths, but it is also responsible for much of the quality of life which allowed us to develop the technology to build autonomous vehicles. The horse and buggy had to be invented before the steel mill could be invented, before the car, before the TV set, before the computer, and therefore the autonomous car. One innovation fuels the next in some way.
We did teach machines how to drive. They still only have their learner's permit, but with a little practice, they will exceed human drivers by any measure.
Except one: only humans will understand the beauty of the machine under their direct control, the thrum of the engine, the instant response of thousands of pounds of steel to the touch of your finger or your foot on the pedal. It's visceral.
I've lamented before that today's kids don't know about the tactile experience of choosing their music, putting a cassette in the deck and fast-forwarding to find it. Now, we click on the song we want to hear. Some people are resisting; look at the resurgence of vinyl. You appreciate watching television much more when this is how you watch 480i than you do by clicking a Netflix or YouTube video. Likewise, literally "going somewhere" will always require the human touch. Or else it will be no more special than clicking on a map.
Human drivers will still be on the roadways for a long, long time. But machines will be dominant roadway users in ten years; they will be better than human drivers in every way.
I think of the Humboldt Broncos bus crash and virtually every other car, truck, or bus accident as reason why autonomous vehicles will take over quickly. Once they're proven to be safe, everyone from MADD to every medical group to every government agency will be finding ways to promote the sales of autonomous cars over conventional cars.
A baby born today might never know human-driven cars, like a person born in 1997 might not know "Be Kind, Rewind" stickers.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Seriously? Who loves sitting behind a wheel within a metal coffin, waiting in traffic and be annoyed toward every other drivers around who "obviously" don't drive better than you?
These people are masochists.
I'd rather be productive, or plain distract myself playing a game or reading a book, while my metal coffin automatically bring me to me destination.
Self driving cars are basically taxis, without the foreign driver trying to strike a conversation.
Or just move to a developing country that's 50 years behind the times. By the time it goes self-driving, you'll be dead anyway.
Intersections without traffic lights (or something like them) are unlikely in places that are actually livable, not car-based US suburban hellscapes. Pedestrians and cyclists still need the ability to cross roads.
The quest needs be to save lives, not to save driving, period.
180km/h is about the average speed on German roads.
No sig today...
It is still fucking stupid to give up that much control over your autonomy.
Every year in the USA, around 30K people are killed in traffic accidents. Many more are injured. If you want to drive your car, take it to the track and don't demand that we preserve all that just because you feel like you want to be in control of something. Somehow I suspect that guy's probably not the safest driver in the world anyway.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Someone get this Bret Buttfuck faggot a moist towelette for his bleeding anus that he cries about so loud, that faggot needs some tucks medicated pads.
I'm most concerned about how long before motorcycles are made illegal.
I've given up on cars. But you can still buy motorcycles without ABS, traction control, etc., and things such as automatic braking or this horrific "brake assist" my Toyota comes with where it will just decide to make the brakes significantly more sensitive based off how fast your foot comes off the gas and onto the brakes are nonexistent.
I've been on an autonomous bus that was faster than that. Well, it was like a bus but longer and instead of running on a road it ran on two narrow ones.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Might as well ban bicycles too. There's no way riding a bicycle is as safe as crumple-zoned, air-bagged, seat-belted vehicle with automatic 911 calling in an accident. Oh, and Johns Hopkins reports "More than 775,000 children, ages 14 and younger, are treated in hospital emergency rooms for sports-related injuries each year" Limit exercise to non-contact, indoor activities. Of course, for now, we still have a little freedom of choice. So sports could still exist for adults, but to protect the children, be illegal under aged 18. Want to compete? That's what video games are for.
There'll be an app for that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So far self-driving cars have shown that they cannot navigate the roads as well as humans can.
... race back to the farm, to dream with my uncle at the fireside ...
The genie isn't out of the bottle yet.. People just talk like it is for political reasons. Right now, we've just got a few metalworkers competing over how the lamp should be shaped.
Then he's a pillock.
A wise man once said: "Should drive yes or drive no, not drive guess so".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
as they can Slashdot on the go
Like we don't do that alrea~{po ~poz~ppo\[NO CARRIER]
Have gnu, will travel.
Yeah, because the data centers needed to run this automobile dystopia you dream of won't also pollute like hell.
Shut up, fearful, effeminate pansy; too weak willed to handle life, you feel you must have computers live it for you and everyone else, too.
pathetic.
It's a system that would not allow a human to drive into a wall. If I turned the steering wheel toward a wall, the car turns the wheel back the right way
But what if the wall swerved in front of your vehicle? Or ran through a stop sign/red light. And by 'wall' I mean bicycle.
Have gnu, will travel.
I'd like to see the reaction of the police when they come across a horse rider on a UK dual carriageway which has a national speed limit (70 mph). Take the A34 (a road I know all too well), people doing 70+, no hard shoulder, just soft gravelly margins. I don't think I've even seen a cyclist (even though there are cycle crossings on some slip roads), and they don't have to worry about their mode of transport getting skittish.
So-called 'self driving cars' will not be the utopia some of you think it will, and I maintain that until IF and WHEN we understand how actual human brain cognition really works, none of the half-assed excuse for AI will produce a synthetic intelligence that is really 100% capable of handling the task of operating a vehicle under ALL conditions and circumstances. Period. Also I maintain that humans will not accept these machines as they will have ZERO control, and you fanbois somehow skip over the basic human nature that makes that statement true.
I want to join this movement being created and I urge all of you who agree with me to do the same.
There are plenty of cities in the world where traffic lights are merely suggestions and people aren't getting run over by the millions. The reason? They put the god damn phone down and pay attention to the driving.
Cars on rails should be easier to automate, right? But they aren't, they have humans on board. And we already have the tech (called PTC for trains). And yet, humans drive the trains.
So now the argument is that a harder problem to automate (cars) for which the tech is not yet established, will be resolved in some timeframe relevant to us?
Look, humans are control and power freaks. We complain about it here all the time. Some of them suck so bad at driving they will take robo taxi. But the rest of them are going to want control and power over the vehicle. For many of them, it's the most power they will ever have. They aren't going to relinquish it any more than the big boys in Washington D.C. will relinquish theirs.
What's it like being able to tell people what they are allowed to enjoy, and what is forbidden?
Go fist yourself.
Have you been to southeast Asia? In places like Vietnam there are far more scooters and motorcycles than cars.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
"It's a system that would not allow a human to drive into a wall. If I turned the steering wheel toward a wall, the car turns the wheel back the right way," said Roy.
Fly-by-wire systems that countermand user input have been proven fatally dangerous.
Does no one remember Airbus? (incident_s_) (One incident was with the pilot attempting to pull up to avoid the ground, meanwhile the computer calculated the excessive strain on the wings *might* damage them--so instead it refused and crashed and burned...)
Plus, hitting a wall may be the best moral choice--better than a human about to run into the lane ahead or some other valuable obstacle.
Please let the "car as a status symbol" culture die.
Only Trotsky-slut SJWs and nibberizing GOOGLE Demo-dyyks give up their wheels. How Nancy the boi ... how fancy the ploy. Spew carbon baby, run-down a sea-otter pup and krank that 2x4 454 Dodge Charger.
10 years fully autonomous cars taking over completely. Highly unlikely Silicon Valley boy. Maybe 50-100 years from now...
There is a japanese manga (comic book) called MF Ghost.
It is written by the author of the popular Initial D series.
In it, all cars are driverless in the future. People take up human car racing as a type of old school hobby.
I guess the comic is ahead of its time.
The sad truth is most people are Muggles, bereft of the ability to feel and enjoy the sensation of metal on oil on metal, the snick-snick of the shifter as it slides the next cog into place, the *bark* of a willing engine, the more cylinders the merrier... or hey, two spinning triangles..
To most people, cars are but mere transport, bringing no joy, only expense and worry. They are cruel to their cars, neglecting them, treating them as mere appliances.
Go ahead, you car-hating "visionaries", go ahead and sign away more of your autonomy. I hope you enjoy your perceived freedom. Be keenly aware that there are people who do not want the car to go away, to be replaced by only electric robots and we will use all means including political to make sure the car and the motorcycle live on for the forseeable future. Your vision of a utopia of people being passively shuttled around is myopic and misguided.
Those few of us that truly love cars as art, as machinery, as engineering and design will sneak out, and illicitly fling a little car of many cylinders down a winding road, and pretend the world still makes somewhat sense. That is, if we can still get gas and oil and rubber and parts....
Rush said it best:
"I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta
From a better vanished time
I fire up the willing engine
Responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime
Wind
In my hair
Shifting and drifting
Mechanical music
Adrenaline surge...
Well-weathered leather
Hot metal and oil
The scented country air
Sunlight on chrome
The blur of the landscape
Every nerve aware"
My idea of a proper Barchetta. 2 liters. 12 cylinders. Heart of a lion, this one.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
I love driving and the feeling of freedom and control it gives. Fuck ai drivers.
Maybe on some. I drove from Prague to Stuttgart last year, plenty of uncontrolled speed sections, doing about 160, and I passed many more cars than passed me. A few doing about 180, a couple in the 200+ range, but most hanging out around 130-140.
Ever been in a train or plane before?
Found the Mexican
The question that honestly needs to be asked is who really wants to own a driverless car? I'm not talking about driver assist, auto-pilot, etc. I'm talking about going down to the local dealer in order to purchase an SAE level-5 car that does not even have manual steering controls. Unless there is real demand, I expect that there will be no real market for this kind of technology. A lot of comments here are geared towards forcing demand, i.e. through insurance pricing. But we've been trying to force demand for EVs for many years and they're still a niche product. It won't work, because all it takes is one insurance company to not go along with the crowd and instantly gain all the customers who refuse to give up their manually-driven cars.
Level-5 is probably most suited for ride sharing, taxi, or delivery services. It might make owning a car for optional for many people, especially those living in dense urban settings where a vehicle can show up within minutes of being ordered. But I personally don't see it catching on any time soon for most people, especially those in rural areas, or in poorer countries.
I doubt he'll see a ban on human driven cars in his lifetime.
Indeed, it's far more likely that the gasoline necessary to run antique and classic cars will become expensive and scarce, due to increasing use of electric vehicles and changing economics, before human driving is outright banned. In the future, as fewer people choose to operate vehicles powered by internal combustion of liquid fuels, the expense of maintaining the existing fueling infrastructure for passenger vehicles will become ever more prohibitive. Eventually, those who collect and maintain classic cars will have to make securing supplies of fuel for recreational driving part of their hobby. However, by then the public liquid fueling station will have been relegated to the history books or converted to charging electric vehicles instead.
In 2017, the United States had about 40,000 traffic deaths, about 90 percent of which were due to human error,
10 % of all lethal car accidents are not caused by human errors? What is that? Faulty brakes?
C. M. Kornbluth "The Marching Morons" features a car perfect for those who feel they should remain in control.
{^_-}
Cross walks can be seperate to intersections with traffic lights. There's a large number of junctions that never stop for pedestrian crossing, these can be removed once all the cars going through them are autonomous.
The real danger of 100% autonomous cars is not that we will be hit by one. The danger is that unlike mobile phones that we can decide not to carry, once we reach full autonomy on our cars, there will be no way to stop the government from easily tracking the movement of every American. No more going to the secret People for Freedom From Tracking meetings and leaving your phone at home. When the Democrats have the House, Senate, and Presidential office, there's no hiding that you are going to the Republican meeting.
Yes, it can technically all be done right now without self-driving cars. But much of it we can disguise or trick. "I'll walk" is B.S. when half the country would be freezing half the year and everyone would wonder why you were walking. Plus, you'll be the one paying for it.
"It's a system that would not allow a human to drive into a wall. If I turned the steering wheel toward a wall, the car turns the wheel back the right way," said Roy.
Maybe I'm turning towards the wall because the bridge is out? Maybe I'm trying to slow down unconventionally because my breaks have overheated on a long descent. Maybe there is no wall and it's an optical illusion and I'm only trying to turn into my own driveway?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Cyclists will be replaced by self-riding bicycles.
Hit a nerve, did I? If you weren't such a loser, you might have actually had sex by now.
Anyhow, you're completely out of touch with the present. It's ok, progress won't halt and you and your primate chums will be dead relatively soon. Go on now. Plug your ears and shout "LALALALA".
Funny, because I know I could easily beat the shit out of you and I absolutely would if I ever saw you endanger the lives of others.
What's it like being a disrespectful douchebag who purposefully endangers other people because he's an incel virgin with a tiny penis?
Can't say I'll miss it.
No it isn't. It will save lives and get everyone where they want to go much faster.
Where is the self driving horse and cart club ? Where is my auto mek horse?
Hyperbole I guess.
There are no highways where cars drive180 on average, even at night, and even for an individual car maintaining an average of 180 isn't easy. But you still get stretches where some people do 300 if the circumstances allow it.You use a lot of fuel above 200.
...too much.
No, this is not the correct analogy.
A car improves on horses for the most part.
Giving away the freedom and privacy of an individual's ability to control their own movement is something much worse for civilization as a whole
Autonomous public transport will be a tyranny's dream come true
This will happen, it's just silly to welcome it with open arms. Foolish.
Even Googles attempt isnt perfect and cant do highway speeds in highly congested areas.
Do we really want to trust our lives with lowest bidder coding done for AI driving? Even still we are a huge paradigm shift of AI development off. It will perhaps even need a hybrid quantum approach to be possible. Either that or we need better ways of training AI.
Muh progress! Muh singularity! MUH ROBOTS!!
Another deluded dipshit who thinks they're going to be living in their beloved sci-fi novels "any day now."
I bet you'd be the first moron to line up for the Google Brain Implant, too, wouldn't you? It's sooooo cool, you can Google things just by thinking about it! Way rad! Who cares if Google is reading my brain meat and subtly changing my brain functions? IT'S FUCKING BRAIN GOOGLE LIKE IN THAT BOOK I READ! ROOOOOBOOOOTS! FUUUUUUTURE!
You'll never be a starship captain, bucko, and your self-driving cars are a Silicon Valley funding scam. Sad.
It feels like PROGRESS. The techo-bureaucracy has decreed that the serfs are not allowed to drive cars manually as it engenders an unhealthy sense of self-worth and self-sufficiency which is detrimental to the overall efficiency of the economy. Furthermore, by enforcing the complete reliance on automated cars, the techno-bureaucracy can ensure that all serfs will remain compliant with all future laws and regulations by taking them automatically to the nearest Happiness Center for psychological readjustment.
Remember, serfs, economic efficiency is the only thing that matters, and we will gladly sacrifice every single one of you on the altar of Progress to squeeze 1/4% more economic output. Any quaint and outdated notions like liberty and independence must be eliminated from the population in order to maintain our glorious Economy. Docile serfs are good serfs. That's a good serf, take your meds and watch your shows. They're rebooting another beloved franchise for the 11th time, you wouldn't want to miss out because you've been taken away to a Happiness Center, now would you?
You want to save human driving fine, but just like carriage driving its illegal on roads with speed limit higher than 50 KM ( ~ 30MPH) but seriously it should just be illegal on traffic roads. You want to drive fine go to a race track. Thats where you will be okay to drive yourself surrounded by people who drives themselves.
I dont want you to clog the highway because you think you can drive better than a computer who can react about 12 000 times while you are barely aware of the situation.