Except in the airline industry, part of a pilot's training is to ground check the plane before taking off. A person owning an automated car can be expected to maintain the pressure in the tires etc. but never will they spend 20 minutes checking their vehicle before leaving the driveway. Also, airplanes have many people monitoring their safety. Where I usually fly from, planes have to be completely de-iced. With all those sensors, automated cars will likely need to be de-iced as well to work properly but who is going to do that in their driveway. So automated cars will need to work with the same reliability as an airplane in all weather with a fraction of the maintenance and oversight that airlines get. And they'll only become safe if the manufacturers don't get sued into oblivion first.
This is why technology is a downer today. Things aren't done just because they are cool anymore. Consumers are led down a path that feels like they are getting some of what they want but it never happens without having strings attached any more.
If google ls pushing this, there must be more scanning happening here somewhere that they can profit from. I will stay with plain text and less invasion of privacy thanks.
If they were, then the EU wouldn't be able to cite specific laws that were in place at the time and not followed. If you go to a store and the man behind the counter tells you it's ok to pay $0.05 for a drink and a chocolate bar, do you believe the person behind the counter or do you ask more questions?
I've never bought a tool that advertised to do things on its own. If I buy a chainsaw that says 'guaranteed to cut down any tree up to 12" in diameter on its own, just start and stand back!" and then it kills my child, I am damn well going to sue the manufacturer. If the instructions said "guaranteed to cut safely 95% of the time" I wouldn't sue them but nor would I buy it, I would just stay with a chainsaw I control myself.
Controlling the dog is well within the owner's capability. Controlling an automated car is not even logical. The whole point of an automated car is to not control it.
Taking this attitude with autonomous cars will kill their development as you cant make something perfect and car manufacturers will not accept liability when they cant control how their vehicles are used.
Fine, then we shouldn't be trying to make autonomous cars work yet. We should try again when we can build test simulations sufficient enough to make them perfect off of public roads.
When I am in an accident there is NEVER a party that is blameless. Insurance companies either assign 100% to both sides or make it 50/50. That's how it works.
I disagree. I can get on a bus with no insurance whatsoever. Therefore I should be able to get in a self driving vehicle with no insurance. Unless I tell the car to drive over all my neighbor's lawns on the way to work or there is a brake light on that i ignored, I should not require insurance. I wouldn't fly on an airline that told me I needed liability insurance, why would I use a self driving car that requires it?
Where is the insurance company going to get money to pay if it isn't coming from the customers? You think their owners are going to provide the funds from their personal bank accounts?
This is the only way it can be. If automakers want to drive you around then they are the bus driver. I don't get insurance when I ride a bus. The service accepts liability.
Not to mention computers went from block graphics, to being able to show a photo quality image, to full video. The jump from full video to VR just doesn't seem to be as special by comparison.
I still wouldn't bet on automated cars in the next 20 years. I invite anyone to prove me wrong, but they'll need to sit their vehicle out in my driveway in a blizzard over night and then in the morning I need it to work after clearing off the windows. I expect that it should pull out of my driveway and drive me to work safely even though everything is under snow.
I'm waiting to see how they will make the sensors impervious to blowing sticky snow and frost. When you park your car outside in the winter you kind of want it to be able to see the road the next morning without going through an hour long procedure to clear everything. Some mornings you are lucky if the windshield wipers are working.
You hit the nail on the head except for the fact that not all humans are capable of staying focused on the ride while not involved in it, and what is the point of that anyway? Otherwise, right on point.
Slashdot Mirror
Except in the airline industry, part of a pilot's training is to ground check the plane before taking off. A person owning an automated car can be expected to maintain the pressure in the tires etc. but never will they spend 20 minutes checking their vehicle before leaving the driveway. Also, airplanes have many people monitoring their safety. Where I usually fly from, planes have to be completely de-iced. With all those sensors, automated cars will likely need to be de-iced as well to work properly but who is going to do that in their driveway. So automated cars will need to work with the same reliability as an airplane in all weather with a fraction of the maintenance and oversight that airlines get. And they'll only become safe if the manufacturers don't get sued into oblivion first.
This is why technology is a downer today. Things aren't done just because they are cool anymore. Consumers are led down a path that feels like they are getting some of what they want but it never happens without having strings attached any more.
If google ls pushing this, there must be more scanning happening here somewhere that they can profit from. I will stay with plain text and less invasion of privacy thanks.
If they were, then the EU wouldn't be able to cite specific laws that were in place at the time and not followed. If you go to a store and the man behind the counter tells you it's ok to pay $0.05 for a drink and a chocolate bar, do you believe the person behind the counter or do you ask more questions?
I thought Uber solved this problem.
I've never bought a tool that advertised to do things on its own. If I buy a chainsaw that says 'guaranteed to cut down any tree up to 12" in diameter on its own, just start and stand back!" and then it kills my child, I am damn well going to sue the manufacturer. If the instructions said "guaranteed to cut safely 95% of the time" I wouldn't sue them but nor would I buy it, I would just stay with a chainsaw I control myself.
I'm suggesting you don't do that thing you might think the automated cab might drive you to the authorities for.
Controlling the dog is well within the owner's capability. Controlling an automated car is not even logical. The whole point of an automated car is to not control it.
Taking this attitude with autonomous cars will kill their development as you cant make something perfect and car manufacturers will not accept liability when they cant control how their vehicles are used.
Fine, then we shouldn't be trying to make autonomous cars work yet. We should try again when we can build test simulations sufficient enough to make them perfect off of public roads.
..assign 100% to one side..
When I am in an accident there is NEVER a party that is blameless. Insurance companies either assign 100% to both sides or make it 50/50. That's how it works.
Without taxi's to push the price down, the price will be around that of a taxi cab.
I disagree. I can get on a bus with no insurance whatsoever. Therefore I should be able to get in a self driving vehicle with no insurance. Unless I tell the car to drive over all my neighbor's lawns on the way to work or there is a brake light on that i ignored, I should not require insurance. I wouldn't fly on an airline that told me I needed liability insurance, why would I use a self driving car that requires it?
Where is the insurance company going to get money to pay if it isn't coming from the customers? You think their owners are going to provide the funds from their personal bank accounts?
I'll just keep owning a manual car then.
So you're saying every person that drives the car should inspect the billions of lines of code that go into the AI? That's fucking insane.
Everyone will be paying through their insurance to support the few wealthy elite with self driving cars.
This is the only way it can be. If automakers want to drive you around then they are the bus driver. I don't get insurance when I ride a bus. The service accepts liability.
Not to mention computers went from block graphics, to being able to show a photo quality image, to full video. The jump from full video to VR just doesn't seem to be as special by comparison.
I still wouldn't bet on automated cars in the next 20 years. I invite anyone to prove me wrong, but they'll need to sit their vehicle out in my driveway in a blizzard over night and then in the morning I need it to work after clearing off the windows. I expect that it should pull out of my driveway and drive me to work safely even though everything is under snow.
Well, it's hard to say while they're still running things over at 35 MPH.
Not following why. Obviously they didn't talk to the correct authorities. So they will get bit.
Why are the drivers going to be run over by a self driving Uber car being tested?
I'm waiting to see how they will make the sensors impervious to blowing sticky snow and frost. When you park your car outside in the winter you kind of want it to be able to see the road the next morning without going through an hour long procedure to clear everything. Some mornings you are lucky if the windshield wipers are working.
You hit the nail on the head except for the fact that not all humans are capable of staying focused on the ride while not involved in it, and what is the point of that anyway? Otherwise, right on point.