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.
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.
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.
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...
Yes they absolutely do. At least for now.
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.
But there is no self driving motorcycle... And that is NOT a small group.
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.
Autonomous cars do need stripes. Stripe failure is the cause of at least one Tesla crash. Some can also catch speed signs. And are people no longer going to cross streets on foot?
You don't have to worry. That generation is going to die off, and the younger people who aren't married to their automobiles are going to replace them and safety and overall capacity of the road network will win out.
Not next year, maybe not even 10 or 20 years from now. It is an inevitability though that humans won't be allowed manual driving on public roads. You'll be able to do it on private roads. With self driving you can teach EVERY SINGLE car to avoid the last mistake, and they will remember forever. Humans make the same mistakes over and over and the death toll is too big to accept.
People look at the current situation in the infancy of self driving and think that's how it will always be. It won't. In the early days of aviation airplane travel was super dangerous but now it's the safest way to travel long distances. Incremental changes and improvements will accumulate for self driving until it is such a vast win that only a few who are resistant to any change will object, and at that point human driving will be prohibited on public roadways.
We're not there yet, but we will be.
What if the majority wanted to live on the couch and only go out in VR. And lets say you wanted to leave the house and go do stuff, but you werent allowed to do that because of the "waste" of providing sidewalks, and shop fronts and public bathrooms and all that? Would you still feel the same?
I think you just dont care about this loss because you dont really like driving.
Sry, replied to wrong comment.
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.
It really doesn't matter who drives or who programs. What matters is whether the system is better. For cars, self driving is objectively better in safety.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
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.
You day this despite the fact that there is no shred of demonstrable proof that any car has ever driven on its own safer than a human.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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,
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.
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.
Yeah, it is not like dot/nhsta have crunched numbers about Tesla and found that they had fewer accidents and more lives saved under car control than under human control. Oh yeah wat. They did and have found that exact situation; Tesla auto pilot is saving lives.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There isn't enough data yet.
All present findings are statistically insignificant. The reality has to scale out to the entire population before it means anything.
Yes. People for whom cars are an afterthought need to be included in the data, which at this point means many more people than current Tesla owners.
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.
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.
World's overpopulated anyway, though :)
In cities that are actually livable, humans will be allowed to cycle or walk, so cars will still be interacting with human "drivers."
Itâ(TM)s not happening without big changes. A human at their best is going to be better than a machine for a long time. Humans arenâ(TM)t always at their best, while machines have a baseline of not screwing up they wonâ(TM)t go below, so things like crash avoidance are good for when humans drop the ball, but machines are worse drivers than people the rest of the time. To fix it you need to get rid of all the ambiguities out on the road, this means cm accurate local positioning, (not 5m accurate gps), cameras and sensors on road that map location of every car person animal and debris, and send data to all vehicles, etc. with low tech prices itâ(TM)s not that expensive to build, but it must be built, like a wireless trolley system self driving cars wirelessly attach to.
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
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.
You day this despite the fact that there is no shred of demonstrable proof that any car has ever driven on its own safer than a human.
No, apart from all those millions of miles clocked up by self driving cars.
No sig today...
Fools believing this 'infinite safety' garbage are what will enable the next age of tyranny, this time assisted by technology.
It's been decades since the machines got a spellchecker able to correctly spell 'infallible'.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Well sure, the computers are programmed by people with the time and resources to sit in a calm environment and set parameters for how to handle an emergency. It doesn't matter that those same people would panic and make split-second bad decisions in the actual emergency.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
statistically insignificant
has to scale out to the entire population before it means anything
You really don't seem to know how statistics works.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
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.
Not to mention the billions of miles in simulation. (Not saying simulation is a good substitute for real driving.)
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
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.
You're apparently an expert in rhetorical argument, however.
So very clever. Shall we pick apart and quote snippets from your comments?
... 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.
...Every year in the USA, around 30K people are killed in traffic accidents. ...
You assume that self-driving cars will have a lower "kill" rate. We won't know if that is a correct assumption until we can look at the full picture when all the cars on the road are self-driving. I remember when over-the-air digital TV was promised to be "either a perfect picture or no picture at all." Well, I see lots of blocking and pixelation in the picture at times. So the "perfect picture or no picture" promise was nothing more than technological marketing speak.
.
Technology always looks its best before it is widely implemented.
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.
You're kidding, right? Human pedestrians allowed on the special pathways that only AI directed cars are allowed on? That would mess up the whole scheme!
Go ahead. Please, please let me know if I make such a glaring error as confusing sampling vs. population. I want to correct it.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Yes: humans won't be driving everywhere, so pedestrians will still need to cross streets and walk on sidewalks.
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.
From what I have seen of human drivers, I would expect self driving cars to fair much better in icy and snowy conditions. They will become aware immediately of sliding and be able to detect icy patches in advance better than humans.
Humans seem to have no clue whatsoever and slam randomly into things all the time in slick conditions.
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.
Then let's immediately take every self driving car and let's let them go everywhere without safety drivers until they hit 3.22 trillion miles like humans do. If you think chaos would not ensue, you are crazy.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Don't machines need to first know how to pick out a woman with a bike or a concrete barrier? Where does that fit in?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Yes, so much better. You just get in your car and it automatically takes you to the gulag.
If the self-driving cars have internet access or remote update capability, I would love to see (from far away) what the terrorists can do with them after hacking the update server.
You're talking about the accidents that the safety driver couldn't prevent; and it is questionable whether a human should be held responsible when the car is acting non-human. If a self-driving car slams on the breaks gets rear ended, it may legally be the fault of the driver behind but it is technically important that the car is going to cause accidents on an ongoing basis if they don't act human.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Yes, millions of carefully selected miles with safety drivers. You people always forget that part.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Once computers can drive better than people (which has happened already or will happen very soon)
Not only has it not happened, it doesn't look like it will in my lifetime unless all humans are off the road.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
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.
don't use apple maps, there fixed.
Insurance will decide who and what gets to drive...if you can pay for the premium to drive manually then go ahead.
With the ability to not get drunk, always pay attention and communicate with every other car on the road, self-driving cars had better have a lower accident rate. In fact, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if the overall number of accidents a year drop into the single digits once self-driving cars are common.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
no
There is not enough data for a FULL PROOF.
But the fact is, there is plenty of data that leans heavily toward all of the autopilots being safer than human driving, under the conditions that they have been allowed.
For tesla, it has been on highways. We own a 2013 Tesla, so we do not have AP. However, we have had loaners and I have seen that overall, it does a pretty good job. On the highway. Sure as hell though, I would not be driving a tesla through suburbia, or rural roads. For example, I would not trust Tesla to do small round-abouts.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
btw, love your signature. It is what happens for being centrist and honest.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Apparently for a long time if you live in certain Chicago neighborhoods.
For cars, self driving is objectively better in safety.
Even if you could show that a fully self driving car is safer than a human driven car, itâ(TM)s not a binary choice. Many of the features currently being used to make self driving cars safe could also be used in augmented systems and as in most modern systems, there likely exists a sweet spot where the combination of human and machine is better than either one by themself by using the strengths of computers and the strengths of humans together.
C. M. Kornbluth "The Marching Morons" features a car perfect for those who feel they should remain in control.
{^_-}
"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
Get out your red pen, dude.
Maybe you can get a woodie from the feeling of power.
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.
Or maybe this is about you, not me.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Also, it seems that the self-driving car proponents really dislike owning stuff as usually the next proposal is no personal cars, but only rented time on state (or company) owned cars. So, almost like public transport.
And I can tell you about this, as my country had something like this for 50 years. Personal cars were not common in the USSR, as they were expensive and you also usually had to wait in line for something like 10 years if you wanted to buy a new car (after getting the permission to do so from your workplace). We still see the echoes of that in the overcrowded tiny parking lots for old apartment buildings (at the time, it was expected that there would be one car per 3 - 10 apartments).
And, I guess, people did not need cars. After all, you can take the bus to work and back and take the bus or the train if you wanted to visit some other city. You can even use a taxi if you can afford it. Why would you even want a car?
After the USSR collapsed and cheap used cars from the West became available, everyone bought them.
So, every time when someone brings up the "cars are bad, use public transport" in my country, they forget that that we already had that system and did not like it.
I see a future with walled/fenced roads and overpasses and underpasses built in to avoid impeding the flow of traffic with human corpses.
Don't kid yourself, mister statistic.
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?
They think they're creating the Star Trek utopia, but instead they're running headlong into Idiocracy. Don't need to think if the computer will do all your thinking for you. The automation craze is going to create some really dysfunctional culture when no one understands why they're doing something, they just know the Computer told them to.
Disagree.
The AI will progress much faster if you turn the simulators into puzzle games where people try to set up weird situations and make the car do something stupid.
Driving aimlessly around the roads takes ages.
No sig today...