I'm sure there would be pent up demand for $40 flights from coast to coast too, but we can't remove regulations around flying just to make it cheaper for people who want it so.
We are going from hundreds of taxi companies to a few taxi companies. Of course the price is going to go up. People are complaining about the taxi companies cornering the market but it's actually a lot better situation right now than we will end up with.
Navigation and lane control is easy. The hard part is understanding how to drive around unplanned things and knowing how to respond to them. Is that thing flying through the air a balloon or a rock? Is that thing on the side of the road going to run out into it unexpectedly? What is that construction equipment that isn't moving with the flow of traffic going to do? Should I pass in the oncoming lane the vehicle driving 20mph?
So you're saying when microwaves came out it would have been ok if they burned down some houses, in spite of the fact that we had already learned what we needed to do to make safe appliances.
Think of the total amount of scrapes, dings, fender benders and worse that people get into today. When we switch to automated driving, those little accidents are no longer the driver's fault so I sure hope manufacturers plan to pay with almost all accidents on the road. Furthermore, if they are not significantly less safe, insurance coverage isn't going down in price either so I hope manufacturers plan to cover all that as well.
If the point of this is to save lives then, "only a little safer than a human" isn't enough.
I don't care if a business is making teddy bears and every fifth bear missing an ear. This is a little different. They don't make front end loaders that can explode and kill the driver, so automated cars shouldn't be killing drivers either. Maybe just maybe the technology isn't really quite there to do it safely yet, I'm not willing to give these companies a pass because they relaxed their standards enough to get out the gate first.
Having a child die in a tragic accident that is caused by an imperfect human is one thing, but releasing and profiting from driving software that knowingly has flaws and has not been tested for every situation is quite another. In the former case you are likely to just receive an insurance settlement, in the other case the irresponsible party is a billion dollar company that should have done everything within their power to prevent the death from happening in the first place. America is a place where you can get a million dollar settlement if you serve the coffee too hot, how much is a child's life worth in punitive damages to a company with deep pockets. It's not just the deaths either, it is every fender bender, every scrape. It will probably just make more sense to have a system whereby they can accept claims and pay them out to the vehicle owners rather than going through small claims court for every one.
Still it remains to be seen if autonomy will be affordable once all these costs are considered. There will be several deaths due to various situations possibly warranting settlements into the billions. Will these be just as safe on ice as on pavement? What happens when someone directs their automated vehicle to drive into a weather condition that is "not supported"? Many questions, and many people thinking that it will just work itself out somehow.
It is difficult to spend money on an industry that saves printing charges and shipping charges on physical books yet in some cases charges more for the ebook than the physical version. Demonstration of the fact that 'the people' aren't getting most of the benefits of technology.
That is a faulty comparison. There is no negligence involved when someone gets cancer. In a car accident, there is negligence, which may now be a computer.
Sure I'm fine with it as long as the manufacturer pays, I just don't see it that way. I see insurance companies raising premiums on people who were never responsible for their accidents in the first place.
No, the question is who will compensate for the damage. If a human driver kills a child then it is possibly just a tragic accident where nothing could be done. If an automated car kills a child then it is something that should have been caught unless it can be definitively proven a human would have made the same mistake in the same circumstance. The question is whether the compensation will make it undesirable or unprofitable.
There are a lot of edge cases in the set of interactions entire physical world can have on a vehicle. I'm not confident they will ever think of enough. Some kid will always be getting run over because he was in a shadow and the sun was shining in a stripe and it reflected off the red shirt the child was wearing and confused the car.
Thank you. I keep telling these people, they only see the one in one hundred thousand who drives badly and that's all they remember. Also, just because someone pisses you off in traffic by driving aggressively in a way you don't like, it doesn't mean they are causing accidents.
Since it can't be out there getting people into accidents that otherwise wouldn't be getting into them, it has to be damn near perfect. People keep saying that owners will want to pay the insurance for these but that it will be cheap, well insurance will only be cheap if the automaker pays for all damage or the occurrence of an accident is rare. Yet plenty of other people say they only have to be as good as the average driver, which means the same number of accidents and still expensive insurance. So which is it?
Not to be a negative nellie, but I think it is fair to say that there is a limit to how happy people can become and that there is a turning point in civilization, beyond which life for the average citizen doesn't get much better and can always get much worse. More people check out every year. Welfare participation has been increasing per capita since the 70's. I don't really see poverty decreasing in the near future with Trump taking away all funding except to the military.
Slashdot Mirror
If that is a better solution then they should just half the speed limit right now everywhere and be done with it.
Then you are not performing your job as a consumer to find the best value for your money that you can.
I'm sure there would be pent up demand for $40 flights from coast to coast too, but we can't remove regulations around flying just to make it cheaper for people who want it so.
We are going from hundreds of taxi companies to a few taxi companies. Of course the price is going to go up. People are complaining about the taxi companies cornering the market but it's actually a lot better situation right now than we will end up with.
Driving would not be workable if every car drove like your grandmother.
Navigation and lane control is easy. The hard part is understanding how to drive around unplanned things and knowing how to respond to them. Is that thing flying through the air a balloon or a rock? Is that thing on the side of the road going to run out into it unexpectedly? What is that construction equipment that isn't moving with the flow of traffic going to do? Should I pass in the oncoming lane the vehicle driving 20mph?
That is harder than natural language detection.
So you're saying when microwaves came out it would have been ok if they burned down some houses, in spite of the fact that we had already learned what we needed to do to make safe appliances.
Think of the total amount of scrapes, dings, fender benders and worse that people get into today. When we switch to automated driving, those little accidents are no longer the driver's fault so I sure hope manufacturers plan to pay with almost all accidents on the road. Furthermore, if they are not significantly less safe, insurance coverage isn't going down in price either so I hope manufacturers plan to cover all that as well.
If the point of this is to save lives then, "only a little safer than a human" isn't enough.
It's pretty obvious to me that they will pull over as best as they can but still basically block the road, stop, and let the owner walk home.
News flash! More toy plastic watches are sold than fine Rolexes.
I don't care if a business is making teddy bears and every fifth bear missing an ear. This is a little different. They don't make front end loaders that can explode and kill the driver, so automated cars shouldn't be killing drivers either. Maybe just maybe the technology isn't really quite there to do it safely yet, I'm not willing to give these companies a pass because they relaxed their standards enough to get out the gate first.
Having a child die in a tragic accident that is caused by an imperfect human is one thing, but releasing and profiting from driving software that knowingly has flaws and has not been tested for every situation is quite another. In the former case you are likely to just receive an insurance settlement, in the other case the irresponsible party is a billion dollar company that should have done everything within their power to prevent the death from happening in the first place. America is a place where you can get a million dollar settlement if you serve the coffee too hot, how much is a child's life worth in punitive damages to a company with deep pockets. It's not just the deaths either, it is every fender bender, every scrape. It will probably just make more sense to have a system whereby they can accept claims and pay them out to the vehicle owners rather than going through small claims court for every one.
You try telling that to a family that lost a child because a computer got blinded by the sun.
Still it remains to be seen if autonomy will be affordable once all these costs are considered. There will be several deaths due to various situations possibly warranting settlements into the billions. Will these be just as safe on ice as on pavement? What happens when someone directs their automated vehicle to drive into a weather condition that is "not supported"? Many questions, and many people thinking that it will just work itself out somehow.
It is difficult to spend money on an industry that saves printing charges and shipping charges on physical books yet in some cases charges more for the ebook than the physical version. Demonstration of the fact that 'the people' aren't getting most of the benefits of technology.
Healthcare works the same way by the way
That is a faulty comparison. There is no negligence involved when someone gets cancer. In a car accident, there is negligence, which may now be a computer.
Sure I'm fine with it as long as the manufacturer pays, I just don't see it that way. I see insurance companies raising premiums on people who were never responsible for their accidents in the first place.
No, the question is who will compensate for the damage. If a human driver kills a child then it is possibly just a tragic accident where nothing could be done. If an automated car kills a child then it is something that should have been caught unless it can be definitively proven a human would have made the same mistake in the same circumstance. The question is whether the compensation will make it undesirable or unprofitable.
We're running out of places that can afford to keep their public transportation up to date.
Let it keep itself going in a snow storm. Or try using it after the morning of a snow storm.
There are a lot of edge cases in the set of interactions entire physical world can have on a vehicle. I'm not confident they will ever think of enough. Some kid will always be getting run over because he was in a shadow and the sun was shining in a stripe and it reflected off the red shirt the child was wearing and confused the car.
Thank you. I keep telling these people, they only see the one in one hundred thousand who drives badly and that's all they remember. Also, just because someone pisses you off in traffic by driving aggressively in a way you don't like, it doesn't mean they are causing accidents.
Since it can't be out there getting people into accidents that otherwise wouldn't be getting into them, it has to be damn near perfect. People keep saying that owners will want to pay the insurance for these but that it will be cheap, well insurance will only be cheap if the automaker pays for all damage or the occurrence of an accident is rare. Yet plenty of other people say they only have to be as good as the average driver, which means the same number of accidents and still expensive insurance. So which is it?
Not in all weather they won't. Only people in moderate climates will be able to use these.
Not to be a negative nellie, but I think it is fair to say that there is a limit to how happy people can become and that there is a turning point in civilization, beyond which life for the average citizen doesn't get much better and can always get much worse. More people check out every year. Welfare participation has been increasing per capita since the 70's. I don't really see poverty decreasing in the near future with Trump taking away all funding except to the military.