They don't have sensors to identify landmarks - unless they're being piloted remotely by camera that's no use. Even so, if GPS is denied, they can use inertial navigation and compass heading to get pretty darn close to their failsafe waypoints.
I expect the safety testing is to see how the passengers in the car fare in the event of a rollover moreso than the likelihood of a rollover. You can analyze the impact raising the COG has on stability pragmatically, it's by no means an "apples and oranges" comparison. In any case, it's far less likely to roll than your average new SUV/CUV on the road today.
I think that's sort of the point... There have been three fires in the electric car that's only existed for 2 years with some 18k units on the road. We're seeing a big media hoopla about three incidents. Musk has already said three incidents is not significant enough to draw any conclusions. Yet Tesla still gets attacked for the fires. So, Musk pulls up some general statistics for internal combustion automobiles to show that - yeah, three is not a significant number. But, for some reason that's being intellectually dishonest because he's not taking into account fires for new cars. Cars in his class. Cars with four doors. Cars with a T in the name.
Yes, it's good to point out that the numbers include older cars that might be in poorer states of repair. It's also good to point out that the company is being attacked on an incident rate of 3. They're expected to respond to the hoopla over an incident rate that is impossible to draw any legitimate conclusions from anyway.
Yet, you're insisting they are intellectually dishonest... Go ahead and make a legitimate comparison. We're waiting...
...not really at all where I was intending to go with that one. I was merely pointing out that if you ride for funsies you'll be on the bike a lot more time and thus more prone to injuries related to riding.
But, I can play ball in your court, too. Fact is, drivers are not often on the road because life requires it. They drive because it's more convenient than taking the bus or train, or because it's infeasable (or they're simply too lazy) to walk or bike. If, god forbid, you lost the ability to drive today, you would not be stuck immobile in your home until you die from hunger. Driving, for the vast majority of us, is optional. There's nothing wrong with that. I drive all the time and I love it.
I also bicycle a lot, and love that as well. I also don't simply ride for fun and neither do most bicycle commuters. We have somewhere we need to be because, as you've mentioned, life requires it. Roads are for transportation and are always filled with obstacles. Do you get angry at somebody stopping up a lane when they're parallel parking? A utility vehicle parked in a traffic lane working on a power line? A pedestrian with the gall to stop the entire road just so he can get to the other side? No, you work around it, because you're a driver in charge of your own destiny and not programmed to simply go from point A to point B at full throttle. Yet somehow, if it's a bicycle that you have to go around, he becomes some sub-human vermin who personally has it in for your precise driving time-table.
Bicycles and cars can absolutely co-exist, but it takes consideration from both sides.
There is never going to be "one answer" when it comes to getting around. Cars cause congestion and pollution. Bicycles are slow and lack protection from the elements. Busses and trains don't go where you want to go when you want to go there.
It doesn't mean you give up on the problem just because there isn't a silver bullet - you attack it from wherever you realistically can. Many cities have put bicycles to use for a significant amount of the year.
Keep in mind this is over four decades of cycling for sport. Any physical activity you do for sport is going to come with some risk of injury - be it bicycling, football (American or World), rock climbing, etc. It's not accurate to compare injuries obtained cycling for both sport and commute with injuries obtained while driving for the commute.
The other other difference is that - according to TFS - this wasn't simply criticism of government policies, it was unprofessional comments on individuals in office - including petty insults on physical appearance. If it was criticism of government, we'd all rightfully be up in arms, but it is plain and simple unprofessional behavior. It doesn't matter where you work, making petty derogatory comments in public about other people in the organization is unacceptable.
Your list barely scratches the surface. All sorts of people making a fuss in this thread about car companies not innovating... I don't even like most new cars, but I'll admit they are insanely better than those of even two decades ago in power, comfort, safety, and reliability.
But no, let's keep complaining that they can't roll out a new feature as quick as a software company...
It's not really Google vs The Car Companies anyway now, is it?
Google in this case is a scientist. An academic working on trying to prove a theory. Come up with a proof of concept and find partners in the industry to work out the implementation and - where applicable - work with regulatory authorities to find a path to market. Just as you say, it's going to be piecemeal. Nobody is going to bolt the autopilot to a car and try to get it certified by DOT. They will however be licensing the algorithms that come out of the autopilot studies to add those piecemeal features.
Wait a second, you'll pick a tech company which considers you a product rather than a customer over a car company whose products come with rather extensive warranties (many including the routine maintenance)?
I'm usually first in line to bash car companies over shipshod products and stagnation, but I know that if my car breaks down there is at least a way to handle it. How many stories have we heard about folks getting their google accounts dropped and having absolutely zero recourse?
#1 - The suit to force the vaccination was brought by the father of the children. Society may be encouraging them to vaccinate, but it's a parent that forced it. I'd want a sane parent to win in a square-off against a crazy parent every single time.
#2 - Societies can and regularly do step in when parents are failing in their fairly fundamental *responsibility* to parent their kids.
I agree there's risk in becoming reliant on nannies. To me, it all comes down to the implementation. Current lane holding systems make a big fuss when they're engaged. If they are being engaged often, you know there's a problem with that driver. The thing is, we automate simple tasks all the time. I have an electric kettle - put water in, hit the button, and it turns itself off when it's boiling. Saves me from having to turn on and off a burner on the stove. Has that lack of practice impacted my ability to cook a meal? Not at all. If you're in IT (I'm not, so I could just be making this up:P ), I'm sure you use hundreds of scripts every day to automate simple tasks, and I'm sure it doesn't make you any worse at your job.
The practice is still something I'm torn on. I *want* people to take driving seriously and to enjoy it enough to practice regularly. I want people to find it unthinkable to futz with their phones while they drive or hop behind the wheel when they're drunk. I want to drive or ride down the road confident in the feeling that I am surrounded by professionals who pay full attention to their surroundings. But, if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak, and that's just not the world we live in. The bar for driving competence is absurdedly low for the risks involved, and I'm all for providing tools to make up for that gap.
Everybody's focussing on this "tight space" bit and ignoring the fact that a self-parking car will be far more likely to center itself in its lane than a regular driver. I'm picturing a lot where many of the cars are perfectly centered in their lanes rather than hugging one side or the other.
Can't tell if sarcastic or....
What about what happens when little Jimmy gets your keys or kicks the car into neutral while playing in it?
Or when somebody breaks in and steals it?
Or when your car breaks down and you can't get it out of your spot?
And once you give regular cars to everybody, they'll be parking forwards and backwards in spots other than parking?
No, this isn't a pandoras box. Aside from defining a framework of safety regulations for automated cars, all of this is being handled with current cars which are already driven by people who are far less reliable than a properly engineered automated system.
On the other hand, if the parking assists make an effort to park in the middle of every parking spot where possible you might end up with less squeezed places to begin with./quote
You can pretty much put your money on this. All this discussion about fitting into tight spaces when parking assists are going to make it far easier for those that don't have it by putting these automated cars neatly centered between the stripes.
Road safety can't possibly go downwards simply because we took humans out of the equation.
I'm quite certain it can. When the majority of car accidents are caused solely by the human behind the wheel - and those human factors are primarily alcohol, speed, or other distractions - I think you'll find a decent automated system will on average be quite a bit safer than a human.
The cars aren't going to talk to each other, just like people don't. I'd imagine the Ford engineers programmed it to ensure there is nothing blocking the parking lines. If somebody's crowding to one side of their own spot - just like with human drivers - that's entirely on them. I think an automated parking system would alleviate the "tight spot" problem as it'd be able to hit the center of the parking spot every time.
As a mild gearhead and a big fan of driving and cars in general, I gotta say my opinion on this has shifted in recent years. It used to be "oh god nobody's gonna know how to drive anymore!" But, in my time on the road I see that people are not that great at driving as it is - and parking really highlights it. Despite the danger and the laws on the books, people still text, eat, read, or whatever else when they should be focused on the road. We could take away all the nannies modern cars have and it won't change the way people act behind the wheel. Sure, we'd all prefer these inattentive drivers be kept off the roads, but that's not going to happen without some serious rethinking of how American cities are laid out.
I want your grandma to have adaptive cruise control and lane-holding systems to make her less likely to run me over on my motorbike. I want my girlfriend to have a parallel park system so she don't use your bumpers to find out when she's backed up too far. I want you to be able to hop out of your car in the middle of the parking lot so your doors don't fling into mine in the wind, and so your car can go put itself neatly centered in one spot rather than angling across two.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have sensors to identify landmarks - unless they're being piloted remotely by camera that's no use. Even so, if GPS is denied, they can use inertial navigation and compass heading to get pretty darn close to their failsafe waypoints.
You don't have to be liberal to dislike Rush Limbaugh...
I expect the safety testing is to see how the passengers in the car fare in the event of a rollover moreso than the likelihood of a rollover. You can analyze the impact raising the COG has on stability pragmatically, it's by no means an "apples and oranges" comparison. In any case, it's far less likely to roll than your average new SUV/CUV on the road today.
Man, you really dislike Tesla.
No no no, he doesn't tell *his* audience to get a job, he tells NPR's audience to get a job.
I think that's sort of the point... There have been three fires in the electric car that's only existed for 2 years with some 18k units on the road. We're seeing a big media hoopla about three incidents. Musk has already said three incidents is not significant enough to draw any conclusions. Yet Tesla still gets attacked for the fires. So, Musk pulls up some general statistics for internal combustion automobiles to show that - yeah, three is not a significant number. But, for some reason that's being intellectually dishonest because he's not taking into account fires for new cars. Cars in his class. Cars with four doors. Cars with a T in the name.
Yes, it's good to point out that the numbers include older cars that might be in poorer states of repair. It's also good to point out that the company is being attacked on an incident rate of 3. They're expected to respond to the hoopla over an incident rate that is impossible to draw any legitimate conclusions from anyway.
Yet, you're insisting they are intellectually dishonest... Go ahead and make a legitimate comparison. We're waiting...
If ever there were reason to question your statistics...
...not really at all where I was intending to go with that one. I was merely pointing out that if you ride for funsies you'll be on the bike a lot more time and thus more prone to injuries related to riding.
..Why can't we all just get along?
But, I can play ball in your court, too. Fact is, drivers are not often on the road because life requires it. They drive because it's more convenient than taking the bus or train, or because it's infeasable (or they're simply too lazy) to walk or bike. If, god forbid, you lost the ability to drive today, you would not be stuck immobile in your home until you die from hunger. Driving, for the vast majority of us, is optional. There's nothing wrong with that. I drive all the time and I love it.
I also bicycle a lot, and love that as well. I also don't simply ride for fun and neither do most bicycle commuters. We have somewhere we need to be because, as you've mentioned, life requires it. Roads are for transportation and are always filled with obstacles. Do you get angry at somebody stopping up a lane when they're parallel parking? A utility vehicle parked in a traffic lane working on a power line? A pedestrian with the gall to stop the entire road just so he can get to the other side? No, you work around it, because you're a driver in charge of your own destiny and not programmed to simply go from point A to point B at full throttle. Yet somehow, if it's a bicycle that you have to go around, he becomes some sub-human vermin who personally has it in for your precise driving time-table.
Bicycles and cars can absolutely co-exist, but it takes consideration from both sides.
There is never going to be "one answer" when it comes to getting around. Cars cause congestion and pollution. Bicycles are slow and lack protection from the elements. Busses and trains don't go where you want to go when you want to go there.
It doesn't mean you give up on the problem just because there isn't a silver bullet - you attack it from wherever you realistically can. Many cities have put bicycles to use for a significant amount of the year.
Keep in mind this is over four decades of cycling for sport. Any physical activity you do for sport is going to come with some risk of injury - be it bicycling, football (American or World), rock climbing, etc. It's not accurate to compare injuries obtained cycling for both sport and commute with injuries obtained while driving for the commute.
The other other difference is that - according to TFS - this wasn't simply criticism of government policies, it was unprofessional comments on individuals in office - including petty insults on physical appearance. If it was criticism of government, we'd all rightfully be up in arms, but it is plain and simple unprofessional behavior. It doesn't matter where you work, making petty derogatory comments in public about other people in the organization is unacceptable.
Naysayers say Nay!
Your list barely scratches the surface. All sorts of people making a fuss in this thread about car companies not innovating... I don't even like most new cars, but I'll admit they are insanely better than those of even two decades ago in power, comfort, safety, and reliability.
But no, let's keep complaining that they can't roll out a new feature as quick as a software company...
It's not really Google vs The Car Companies anyway now, is it?
Google in this case is a scientist. An academic working on trying to prove a theory. Come up with a proof of concept and find partners in the industry to work out the implementation and - where applicable - work with regulatory authorities to find a path to market. Just as you say, it's going to be piecemeal. Nobody is going to bolt the autopilot to a car and try to get it certified by DOT. They will however be licensing the algorithms that come out of the autopilot studies to add those piecemeal features.
Wait a second, you'll pick a tech company which considers you a product rather than a customer over a car company whose products come with rather extensive warranties (many including the routine maintenance)?
I'm usually first in line to bash car companies over shipshod products and stagnation, but I know that if my car breaks down there is at least a way to handle it. How many stories have we heard about folks getting their google accounts dropped and having absolutely zero recourse?
Two counterpoints:
#1 - The suit to force the vaccination was brought by the father of the children. Society may be encouraging them to vaccinate, but it's a parent that forced it. I'd want a sane parent to win in a square-off against a crazy parent every single time.
#2 - Societies can and regularly do step in when parents are failing in their fairly fundamental *responsibility* to parent their kids.
I just got a tetanus and whooping cough booster and I didn't get any gd jelly bean!!
You can't expect me to believe half the people in this discussion read past tf title
I agree there's risk in becoming reliant on nannies. To me, it all comes down to the implementation. Current lane holding systems make a big fuss when they're engaged. If they are being engaged often, you know there's a problem with that driver. The thing is, we automate simple tasks all the time. I have an electric kettle - put water in, hit the button, and it turns itself off when it's boiling. Saves me from having to turn on and off a burner on the stove. Has that lack of practice impacted my ability to cook a meal? Not at all. If you're in IT (I'm not, so I could just be making this up :P ), I'm sure you use hundreds of scripts every day to automate simple tasks, and I'm sure it doesn't make you any worse at your job.
The practice is still something I'm torn on. I *want* people to take driving seriously and to enjoy it enough to practice regularly. I want people to find it unthinkable to futz with their phones while they drive or hop behind the wheel when they're drunk. I want to drive or ride down the road confident in the feeling that I am surrounded by professionals who pay full attention to their surroundings. But, if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak, and that's just not the world we live in. The bar for driving competence is absurdedly low for the risks involved, and I'm all for providing tools to make up for that gap.
Everybody's focussing on this "tight space" bit and ignoring the fact that a self-parking car will be far more likely to center itself in its lane than a regular driver. I'm picturing a lot where many of the cars are perfectly centered in their lanes rather than hugging one side or the other.
Can't tell if sarcastic or.... What about what happens when little Jimmy gets your keys or kicks the car into neutral while playing in it?
Or when somebody breaks in and steals it?
Or when your car breaks down and you can't get it out of your spot?
And once you give regular cars to everybody, they'll be parking forwards and backwards in spots other than parking?
No, this isn't a pandoras box. Aside from defining a framework of safety regulations for automated cars, all of this is being handled with current cars which are already driven by people who are far less reliable than a properly engineered automated system.
On the other hand, if the parking assists make an effort to park in the middle of every parking spot where possible you might end up with less squeezed places to begin with./quote You can pretty much put your money on this. All this discussion about fitting into tight spaces when parking assists are going to make it far easier for those that don't have it by putting these automated cars neatly centered between the stripes.
Road safety can't possibly go downwards simply because we took humans out of the equation.
I'm quite certain it can. When the majority of car accidents are caused solely by the human behind the wheel - and those human factors are primarily alcohol, speed, or other distractions - I think you'll find a decent automated system will on average be quite a bit safer than a human.
I really wish I had four hands...
The cars aren't going to talk to each other, just like people don't. I'd imagine the Ford engineers programmed it to ensure there is nothing blocking the parking lines. If somebody's crowding to one side of their own spot - just like with human drivers - that's entirely on them. I think an automated parking system would alleviate the "tight spot" problem as it'd be able to hit the center of the parking spot every time.
As a mild gearhead and a big fan of driving and cars in general, I gotta say my opinion on this has shifted in recent years. It used to be "oh god nobody's gonna know how to drive anymore!" But, in my time on the road I see that people are not that great at driving as it is - and parking really highlights it. Despite the danger and the laws on the books, people still text, eat, read, or whatever else when they should be focused on the road. We could take away all the nannies modern cars have and it won't change the way people act behind the wheel. Sure, we'd all prefer these inattentive drivers be kept off the roads, but that's not going to happen without some serious rethinking of how American cities are laid out.
I want your grandma to have adaptive cruise control and lane-holding systems to make her less likely to run me over on my motorbike. I want my girlfriend to have a parallel park system so she don't use your bumpers to find out when she's backed up too far. I want you to be able to hop out of your car in the middle of the parking lot so your doors don't fling into mine in the wind, and so your car can go put itself neatly centered in one spot rather than angling across two.