New York Times: Driving Sideways (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/allison-arieff/)
QuoteThe driverless car, like other utopian pursuits, seems always to be just out of reach. It's captured the imagination of many for at least a century: in 1918, the Oakland Tribune reported (in a section I wish all newspapers would bring back called "New and Interesting Facts from Science and Life" ) that "the new car will be all glass-enclosed and controlled entirely by a set of push buttons. It will have no clutch, gears or transmission, will sit low, have small clearance and punctureless tires."
QuoteIt's striking that 1918's Motor Car of the Future doesn't look – or operate – all that different in concept from the 2013 one (or, for that matter, from the 1957 one, which was projected to run on electricity). Our collective visions of the future seem almost always to draw from a limited visual tool kit.
QuoteThe driverless car doesn't look any more futuristic today (in fact, it pretty much looks like ... a car), but what is radically different now is that the means to make that car drive autonomously have been figured out. For example, Google's driverless cars – the ones you hear the most about – have completed over 300,000 autonomous-driving miles accident-free. Many experts, from architects to automobile executives, predict the ascendancy of the autonomous vehicle within three generations. Allstate is preparing actuarial tables; Ford, BMW, Audi, Mercedes-Benz and Nissan, among other car manufacturers, in an unusual shift toward long-term planning, are seeing the writing on the wall and have developed working prototypes. (This may be a smart strategy, given how the United States is trending; in China, meanwhile, car ownership is growing by more than 10 percent annually.)
Can't happen soon enough IMO. I'm excited for the day I can tell my car to drive me to Key West, turn on my ipad, and open a beer. Or tell it to drive me to DC after work and then sleep all night arriving in the morning.
Just what we need, a million accidents as soon as the computers in them crash and show the blue screen of death.
I'll pass on driverless cars as the people are bad enough as it is.
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 01:42:13 PM
Just what we need, a million accidents as soon as the computers in them crash and show the blue screen of death.
I'll pass on driverless cars as the people are bad enough as it is.
Amen to that. :thumbsup:
I don't have time to look for any Youtube clips (to see if it's there), but this topic reminds me of an old episode of
The Jetsons (the episode involving Astro's (Tralfaz's) original owner coming to reclaim him). In one scene, the original owner's attorney (Withers), falling from the dogwalk, radios his remote-controlled car to catch him before he hits the ground. While the car indeed automatically comes and successfully catches him, it then takes off and crashes into a building wall.
Immediately following the crash, an injured Withers grumblingly states (to his banged-up car), "
Of all the dumb cars. Where were you when the electronic brains were being passed out?"
That scene still makes me laugh to this day.
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 01:42:13 PM
Just what we need, a million accidents as soon as the computers in them crash and show the blue screen of death.
I'll pass on driverless cars as the people are bad enough as it is.
How often do modern aircraft, which are heavily computerized and automated, crash from automation failure as opposed to pilot failure or mechanical failure? Almost never. How often do you hear about hospital patients dying because of software failures in medical equipment? Almost never. Software standards for safety and life critical applications goes through a much more stringent analysis and certification process than consumer PC software. And closed, embedded systems like autopilot and car automation are significantly more reliable than a home PC simply because it is a closed environment with known hardware. There will be no driver conflicts, configuration errors, or other similar issues because of this, and that's why PCs usually crash.
If you're honestly curious as to the stringent software standards for life critical applications, the FAA's DO-178B is a good place to start.
Besides, computers can't drive drunk, text and drive, fall sleep behind the wheel, change lanes without checking the blind spot, run a red light, or do any of the other dangerous actions humans do every day behind the wheel. I trust a well written computer algorithm much more than I trust the majority of American drivers out there.
I enjoy driving, the act of controlling a vehicle, feeling its nuances, using it to understand the road below and get a demonstration of the laws of physics. In spite of that appreciation, I think this is a necessary step. People have already shown that driving is a low priority and that they will put other activities first, even when in the driver's seat. People drive while distracted, drive while fatigued, go around curves too fast, follow too closely, overcorrect during a skid, and otherwise drive unsafely and inefficiently.
Imagine how well traffic would flow if the movements of all of the vehicles were coordinated. Cars approaching the desired exit would be to the right, cars passing through town would be to the left, all moving at appropriate and coordinated speeds. No car would slow down because of a minor curve or accident on the other side of the highway, eliminating many of the waves that form in traffic.
I can even see higher speeds being allowed. A computer is much more reliably "reasonable and prudent" than a person is. Free from emotion, and capable of analyzing much more data, the computer could judge a particular road and set of conditions, both on the road and in the car, and select an objectively safe speed, possibly very fast. At night the car could have "thermal vision" and see potential wildlife hazards much better than a human, and respond in an immediate and well-calculated way.
The driving world would not only be safer, but more efficient with fewer traffic problems. We're still a ways off from this goal, but it's approaching.
Quote from: wxfree on July 24, 2013, 10:41:42 PM
People ... go around curves too fast...
I've rarely seen such a thing. In my experience, they go around curves far too slow.
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 01:42:13 PM
Just what we need, a million accidents as soon as the computers in them crash and show the blue screen of death.
How often does the blue screen of death occur on modern computers? And how often is it because people have loaded software or hardware onto a computer which eventually caused the blue screen of death?
Quote from: realjd on July 24, 2013, 06:01:10 PMHow often do modern aircraft, which are heavily computerized and automated, crash from automation failure as opposed to pilot failure or mechanical failure? Almost never. How often do you hear about hospital patients dying because of software failures in medical equipment? Almost never. Software standards for safety and life critical applications goes through a much more stringent analysis and certification process than consumer PC software. And closed, embedded systems like autopilot and car automation are significantly more reliable than a home PC simply because it is a closed environment with known hardware. There will be no driver conflicts, configuration errors, or other similar issues because of this, and that's why PCs usually crash.
If you're honestly curious as to the stringent software standards for life critical applications, the FAA's DO-178B is a good place to start.
Besides, computers can't drive drunk, text and drive, fall sleep behind the wheel, change lanes without checking the blind spot, run a red light, or do any of the other dangerous actions humans do every day behind the wheel. I trust a well written computer algorithm much more than I trust the majority of American drivers out there.
A couple things to consider (and yes I realize that this is off-thread topic):
1. Even while the
Auto-Pilot mode is on, a pilot
still needs to be present in the cockpit seat. I believe that's an FAA requirement.
2. As we recently have come to learn regarding the Asiana Flight 214 crash landing in SFO several weeks ago, a pilot's/co-pilot's over-relying on automated controls can have disastrous results. Granted, that one's more user-error-based; but it's the perfect example of over-reliance of automated controls giving a false sense of security.
Quote from: realjd on July 24, 2013, 06:01:10 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 01:42:13 PM
Just what we need, a million accidents as soon as the computers in them crash and show the blue screen of death.
I'll pass on driverless cars as the people are bad enough as it is.
How often do modern aircraft, which are heavily computerized and automated, crash from automation failure as opposed to pilot failure or mechanical failure? Almost never. How often do you hear about hospital patients dying because of software failures in medical equipment? Almost never. Software standards for safety and life critical applications goes through a much more stringent analysis and certification process than consumer PC software. And closed, embedded systems like autopilot and car automation are significantly more reliable than a home PC simply because it is a closed environment with known hardware. There will be no driver conflicts, configuration errors, or other similar issues because of this, and that's why PCs usually crash.
If you're honestly curious as to the stringent software standards for life critical applications, the FAA's DO-178B is a good place to start.
Besides, computers can't drive drunk, text and drive, fall sleep behind the wheel, change lanes without checking the blind spot, run a red light, or do any of the other dangerous actions humans do every day behind the wheel. I trust a well written computer algorithm much more than I trust the majority of American drivers out there.
Mission Critical hardware is always out of date intentionally, how often does your car engine control module go wrong, how often does your car crash its computer.
For example the 1980s Ford EEC-IV used all the way upto 1995 used a 1970s processor from intel, several autopilots made in the 2000s used the 386 and 486, the space shuttle flew with 1970s systems, The international space station uses similar hardware for day to day operations, but real science is done on Thinkpads.
From wikipedia on the Space Shuttle computer:
A concern with digital fly-by-wire systems is reliability. Considerable research went into the Shuttle computer system. The Shuttle used five identical redundant IBM 32-bit general purpose computers (GPCs), model AP-101, constituting a type of embedded system. Four computers ran specialized software called the Primary Avionics Software System (PASS). A fifth backup computer ran separate software called the Backup Flight System (BFS). Collectively they were called the Data Processing System (DPS).
The design goal of the Shuttle's DPS was fail-operational/fail-safe reliability. After a single failure, the Shuttle could still continue the mission. After two failures, it could still land safely.
The four general-purpose computers operated essentially in lockstep, checking each other. If one computer failed, the three functioning computers "voted" it out of the system. This isolated it from vehicle control. If a second computer of the three remaining failed, the two functioning computers voted it out. In the unlikely case that two out of four computers simultaneously failed (a two-two split), one group was to be picked at random.
The Backup Flight System (BFS) was separately developed software running on the fifth computer, used only if the entire four-computer primary system failed. The BFS was created because although the four primary computers were hardware redundant, they all ran the same software, so a generic software problem could crash all of them. Embedded system avionic software was developed under totally different conditions from public commercial software: the number of code lines was tiny compared to a public commercial software, changes were only made infrequently and with extensive testing, and many programming and test personnel worked on the small amount of computer code. However, in theory it could have still failed, and the BFS existed for that contingency. While the BFS could run in parallel with PASS, the BFS never engaged to take over control from PASS during any Shuttle mission.
The software for the Shuttle computers was written in a high-level language called HAL/S, somewhat similar to PL/I. It is specifically designed for a real time embedded system environment.
The IBM AP-101 computers originally had about 424 kilobytes of magnetic core memory each. The CPU could process about 400,000 instructions per second. They had no hard disk drive, and loaded software from magnetic tape cartridges.
In 1990, the original computers were replaced with an upgraded model AP-101S, which had about 2.5 times the memory capacity (about 1 megabyte) and three times the processor speed (about 1.2 million instructions per second). The memory was changed from magnetic core to semiconductor with battery backup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Flight_systems
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2013, 08:31:39 AMAnd how often is it because people have loaded software or hardware onto a computer which eventually caused the blue screen of death?
I can just imagine people downloading some virus onto their car when it shows them a "click here to win an iPod!" epileptic ad.
in general, I can just imagine my driverless car coming with ads.
shudder.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 25, 2013, 08:40:39 AM
Quote from: realjd on July 24, 2013, 06:01:10 PMHow often do modern aircraft, which are heavily computerized and automated, crash from automation failure as opposed to pilot failure or mechanical failure? Almost never. How often do you hear about hospital patients dying because of software failures in medical equipment? Almost never. Software standards for safety and life critical applications goes through a much more stringent analysis and certification process than consumer PC software. And closed, embedded systems like autopilot and car automation are significantly more reliable than a home PC simply because it is a closed environment with known hardware. There will be no driver conflicts, configuration errors, or other similar issues because of this, and that's why PCs usually crash.
If you're honestly curious as to the stringent software standards for life critical applications, the FAA's DO-178B is a good place to start.
Besides, computers can't drive drunk, text and drive, fall sleep behind the wheel, change lanes without checking the blind spot, run a red light, or do any of the other dangerous actions humans do every day behind the wheel. I trust a well written computer algorithm much more than I trust the majority of American drivers out there.
A couple things to consider (and yes I realize that this is off-thread topic):
1. Even while the Auto-Pilot mode is on, a pilot still needs to be present in the cockpit seat. I believe that's an FAA requirement.
2. As we recently have come to learn regarding the Asiana Flight 214 crash landing in SFO several weeks ago, a pilot's/co-pilot's over-relying on automated controls can have disastrous results. Granted, that one's more user-error-based; but it's the perfect example of over-reliance of automated controls giving a false sense of security.
I disagree on #2. How was it related to automation? The pilot was not using the plane's autoland feature and manually flew it into the ground.
Quote from: realjd on July 25, 2013, 11:04:34 AMHow was it related to automation? The pilot was not using the plane's autoland feature and manually flew it into the ground.
Autopilot may have not been a correct choice of words on my part. Auto-throttle failure seems to be one culprit here.
FWIW, from the latest Wikipedia account (
Bold emphasis added):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214)
Excerpt:
All three pilots told NTSB investigators that they were relying on the 777's automated devices for speed control during final descent. The relief first officer also stated to NTSB investigators that he had called out "sink rate" to call attention to the rate at which the plane was descending during the final approach. The South Korean transport ministry confirmed that this "sink rate" warning was repeated several times during the last minute of the descent.
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 01:42:13 PM
Just what we need, a million accidents as soon as the computers in them crash and show the blue screen of death.
I'll pass on driverless cars as the people are bad enough as it is.
I do not think that the Google driverless car software relies on Microsoft Windows (I could be wrong about that, but since I am talking about
Google here, it makes sense that they would avoid products from Redmond).
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 25, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Mission Critical hardware is always out of date intentionally, how often does your car engine control module go wrong, how often does your car crash its computer.
Software too. I believe at least some of the ATC software used by the FAA dates back to the 1960's. I worked on the FAA's Advanced Automation System (AAS), which was to replace all of the old code with new code all written in Ada(tm).
AAS crashed and burned in the early 1990's after over 10 years of mismanagement by the FAA.
Having the computer drive for you takes the fun out of it.
Also, if the computer not only drives for you but selects a route for you, no sale.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 25, 2013, 07:53:56 PM
Also, if the computer not only drives for you but selects a route for you, no sale.
Agreed. I expect that driverless cars will be the end of roadgeeking. Even if we can select a route, given all the routing difficulties on Google (I particularly can't get it to do loops right), clinching will be MUCH harder. You'll need, god forbid, an actual reason for going on the road.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 25, 2013, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: realjd on July 25, 2013, 11:04:34 AMHow was it related to automation? The pilot was not using the plane's autoland feature and manually flew it into the ground.
Autopilot may have not been a correct choice of words on my part. Auto-throttle failure seems to be one culprit here.
FWIW, from the latest Wikipedia account (Bold emphasis added):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214)
Excerpt:
All three pilots told NTSB investigators that they were relying on the 777's automated devices for speed control during final descent. The relief first officer also stated to NTSB investigators that he had called out "sink rate" to call attention to the rate at which the plane was descending during the final approach. The South Korean transport ministry confirmed that this "sink rate" warning was repeated several times during the last minute of the descent.
I would argue that it wasn't a software failure but rather the pilot improperly setting the software (auto throttle in this case). An autopilot will be more than happy to fly a plane into a mountain but that isn't the fault of the autopilot...
If the pilot had performed an autoland (which the 777 is capable of but is not commonly used, especially for VFR) then the plane most likely would not have crashed.
The old term "Garbage in, garbage out" applies to cases like this.
I'll also point out that fly-by-wire is common with modern aircraft, civilian and military, and has been for quite some time. Drive-by-wire is starting to become more common with vehicles. There are few if any reports of that software failing. Even if a pilot is hand flying an aircraft, that doesn't mean he or she is directly manipulating the control surfaces.
But ignoring implementation details, I like the concept of self driving cars. As much as I enjoy the act of driving and roadgeeking, as a whole society would be better and my personal quality of lift would be higher if we had self driving cars IMO.
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2013, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 25, 2013, 07:53:56 PM
Also, if the computer not only drives for you but selects a route for you, no sale.
Agreed. I expect that driverless cars will be the end of roadgeeking. Even if we can select a route, given all the routing difficulties on Google (I particularly can't get it to do loops right), clinching will be MUCH harder. You'll need, god forbid, an actual reason for going on the road.
I can't see driverless cars ever being a requirement.
It might become a requirement for Interstates, at least where no alternate exists.
And even then, a car with auto-pilot capability should still have the option to turn it off.
Quote from: Steve on July 26, 2013, 07:14:19 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2013, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 25, 2013, 07:53:56 PM
Also, if the computer not only drives for you but selects a route for you, no sale.
Agreed. I expect that driverless cars will be the end of roadgeeking. Even if we can select a route, given all the routing difficulties on Google (I particularly can't get it to do loops right), clinching will be MUCH harder. You'll need, god forbid, an actual reason for going on the road.
I can't see driverless cars ever being a requirement.
Doesn't a lot of the coordination between cars (eg all going the same speed to avoid jams) require it?
I certainly agree that a driver should have a way to disengage auto-control. We'd still need skilled drivers to be able to take control in case of a system failure, and this would require ongoing practice. But there may be difficulties with this. If we're looking for the improved safety and efficiency brought by unemotional and well-calculated driving, how much would that be impaired by having a few cars driven by people doing stupid things and making bad decisions?
I can imagine someone being impatient and wanting to go faster or pass someone, taking manual control, and making inefficient and unsafe maneuvers that all the computer driven cars have to respond to. After a few people do this, and others do the same in response, traffic flow starts to degenerate and everyone starts losing the benefit of this amazing technology.
My basic worldview is libertarian, but rationally, not extremistly, libertarian. I wouldn't want to see rules mandating auto-controls, but I question how well the system will work without it. Maybe traffic will mostly be able to adapt and it won't be a problem, or maybe auto-controls would be required on certain roads while manual driving is allowed on others. This will have to be figured out, but that'll be a good problem to have.
and still maintenance needs both on road and road side stuff will need manual control
Quote from: realjd on July 24, 2013, 12:08:04 PMCan't happen soon enough IMO. I'm excited for the day I can tell my car to drive me to Key West, turn on my ipad, and open a beer. Or tell it to drive me to DC after work and then sleep all night arriving in the morning.
I am not. Being a passenger does not excite me. I love cars, namely OLD cars (mine are 23 and 29 years old) -and I love DRIVING. In order for driverless cars to work as intended (improve traffic flow, reduce accidents, blah blah) they will HAVE to be driverless, constantly communicating with each other. Meaning - I won't be allowed to drive anymore. I'd quite frankly rather off myself. I can't say the "OMFG DRIVERLESS!!!!1!1!111" attitude surprises me, though, given the nearly society-wide mindless obsession with media consumption these days.
But I don't know that it will ever happen. Technological advancement suggests it will, but seeing how it would be the signature of the death warrant for the traffic enforcement business and industry, I suspect those folks will fight it tooth and nail. And some of them - namely the insurance companies - have the cash behind them to get what they want.
I just see it as another bit of mindless progress (i.e. "progress for the sake of progress") personally, that alone is enough for me to find it utterly repulsive. The way I see it? If you want to be a passenger so badly, so you can consume your media/alcohol/etc, lobby for more transit services, then get your tail on those transit services and leave the roads for those of us who like driving and/or who know how to drive like we mean it, and/or who would at least like to be able to drive down any road we like. Don't lobby for driverless cars that will ultimately cause the demise of even being able to do something the rest of us enjoy.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy
I am not. Being a passenger does not excite me. I love cars, namely OLD cars (mine are 23 and 29 years old) -and I love DRIVING. In order for driverless cars to work as intended (improve traffic flow, reduce accidents, blah blah) they will HAVE to be driverless, constantly communicating with each other. Meaning - I won't be allowed to drive anymore. I'd quite frankly rather off myself. I can't say the "DRIVERLESS!!!!1!1!111" attitude surprises me, though, given the nearly society-wide mindless obsession with media consumption these days.
But I don't know that it will ever happen. Technological advancement suggests it will, but seeing how it would be the signature of the death warrant for the traffic enforcement business and industry, I suspect those folks will fight it tooth and nail. And some of them - namely the insurance companies - have the cash behind them to get what they want.
I just see it as another bit of mindless progress (i.e. "progress for the sake of progress") personally, that alone is enough for me to find it utterly repulsive. The way I see it? If you want to be a passenger so badly, so you can consume your media/alcohol/etc, lobby for more transit services, then get your tail on those transit services and leave the roads for those of us who like driving and/or who know how to drive like we mean it, and/or who would at least like to be able to drive down any road we like. Don't lobby for driverless cars that will ultimately cause the demise of even being able to do something the rest of us enjoy.
THIS. All of this. I'm starting to find that, at least in our generation and younger, driving isn't seen as something to be enjoyed, and people like you and I who do enjoy driving and older cars (mine are 16, 20, and 22) are in the minority these days. I went out with a girl a few years younger than me yesterday, and whenever I mentioned driving for fun she looked at me like I was crazy. If driverless cars ever become mandatory, I hope it's after my time.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 09, 2013, 04:31:54 PM
Quote from: realjd on July 24, 2013, 12:08:04 PMCan't happen soon enough IMO. I'm excited for the day I can tell my car to drive me to Key West, turn on my ipad, and open a beer. Or tell it to drive me to DC after work and then sleep all night arriving in the morning.
I am not. Being a passenger does not excite me. I love cars, namely OLD cars (mine are 23 and 29 years old) -and I love DRIVING. In order for driverless cars to work as intended (improve traffic flow, reduce accidents, blah blah) they will HAVE to be driverless, constantly communicating with each other. Meaning - I won't be allowed to drive anymore. I'd quite frankly rather off myself. I can't say the "OMFG DRIVERLESS!!!!1!1!111" attitude surprises me, though, given the nearly society-wide mindless obsession with media consumption these days.
But I don't know that it will ever happen. Technological advancement suggests it will, but seeing how it would be the signature of the death warrant for the traffic enforcement business and industry, I suspect those folks will fight it tooth and nail. And some of them - namely the insurance companies - have the cash behind them to get what they want.
I just see it as another bit of mindless progress (i.e. "progress for the sake of progress") personally, that alone is enough for me to find it utterly repulsive. The way I see it? If you want to be a passenger so badly, so you can consume your media/alcohol/etc, lobby for more transit services, then get your tail on those transit services and leave the roads for those of us who like driving and/or who know how to drive like we mean it, and/or who would at least like to be able to drive down any road we like. Don't lobby for driverless cars that will ultimately cause the demise of even being able to do something the rest of us enjoy.
Where did I say I want to ban manually operated cars? Plenty of people still ride horses even though society has moved on to more modern modes of transport. Also, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.
Going I-Robot Autopilot haha
In order to see the safety benefits of driverless cars, though, ALL cars need to be driverless. The safety lobby will probably move to ban manual driving if driverless cars catch on. Just look at how services such as OnStar are becoming MANDATORY in new cars.
Quote from: realjd on August 19, 2013, 04:01:09 PMWhere did I say I want to ban manually operated cars? Plenty of people still ride horses even though society has moved on to more modern modes of transport. Also, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.
You didn't. It's one of those things that will end up being inevitable. You also obviously didn't read my post; I did not ignore the safety aspect, I acknowledged it and pointed out that for safety to actually
be a benefit to driverless cars, they'd
all have to be driverless.
And as for that 'safety' thing, let's be serious for a minute here.
As pointed out, there are a great many of us who actually enjoy the experience of driving. It isn't a rudimentary routine for me, it is my life. (Why the hell else do you think I became a truck driver? The money? HA!)
Now, there are SEVEN BILLION people on this planet, and that number is rapidly increasing... we are on the cusp of a serious overpopulation crisis. Yet, we are pushing safety so hard that it will end up destroying the enjoyability of life for perhaps millions of people. I think we need to take a serious look at ourselves. Some things are just silly, this mindless 'safety at any cost' mentality that dominates everything these days is most certainly one of those silly things.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 19, 2013, 10:45:42 PM
Now, there are SEVEN BILLION people on this planet, and that number is rapidly increasing... we are on the cusp of a serious overpopulation crisis. Yet, we are pushing safety so hard that it will end up destroying the enjoyability of life for perhaps millions of people. I think we need to take a serious look at ourselves. Some things are just silly, this mindless 'safety at any cost' mentality that dominates everything these days is most certainly one of those silly things.
Do you realize that safer sex can help with the problem?
Quote from: NE2 on August 19, 2013, 10:54:29 PMDo you realize that safer sex can help with the problem?
That's a "duh" thing. I still maintain my position on the mindless "safety at any cost" mentality. It's gone beyond ridiculous.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 19, 2013, 10:45:42 PM
Quote from: realjd on August 19, 2013, 04:01:09 PMWhere did I say I want to ban manually operated cars? Plenty of people still ride horses even though society has moved on to more modern modes of transport. Also, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.
You didn't. It's one of those things that will end up being inevitable. You also obviously didn't read my post; I did not ignore the safety aspect, I acknowledged it and pointed out that for safety to actually be a benefit to driverless cars, they'd all have to be driverless.
And as for that 'safety' thing, let's be serious for a minute here.
As pointed out, there are a great many of us who actually enjoy the experience of driving. It isn't a rudimentary routine for me, it is my life. (Why the hell else do you think I became a truck driver? The money? HA!)
Now, there are SEVEN BILLION people on this planet, and that number is rapidly increasing... we are on the cusp of a serious overpopulation crisis. Yet, we are pushing safety so hard that it will end up destroying the enjoyability of life for perhaps millions of people. I think we need to take a serious look at ourselves. Some things are just silly, this mindless 'safety at any cost' mentality that dominates everything these days is most certainly one of those silly things.
Even if driverless cars aren't mandated, it still will put an ever-increasing dent in the market for self-driving cars. We can compare it to today's equivalent, the people who actually can drive a car with a manual transmission to the people who cannot. It's inevitable that if driverless cars ever catch on, the people who can drive real cars will dwindle, causing a self-mandated market. Eventually, a manually driven car will dwindle to become a novelty item, something that isn't viewed as practical in the world. Today it's rare to see a young person driving stick, when in the future it may be rare to see a young person driving at all (we're already heading that way). To be clear, I'm one of the few young people who
hates driving in an
automatic transmission car. Driverless cars will be one more irritating market-dwindler for me; a few years after they're introduced, I'll probably either have to go with an automatic or get a used because the day I go driverless will be the day after I die, when there are no more hearse drivers.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 19, 2013, 10:45:42 PM
Quote from: realjd on August 19, 2013, 04:01:09 PMWhere did I say I want to ban manually operated cars? Plenty of people still ride horses even though society has moved on to more modern modes of transport. Also, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.
You didn't. It's one of those things that will end up being inevitable. You also obviously didn't read my post; I did not ignore the safety aspect, I acknowledged it and pointed out that for safety to actually be a benefit to driverless cars, they'd all have to be driverless.
And as for that 'safety' thing, let's be serious for a minute here.
As pointed out, there are a great many of us who actually enjoy the experience of driving. It isn't a rudimentary routine for me, it is my life. (Why the hell else do you think I became a truck driver? The money? HA!)
Now, there are SEVEN BILLION people on this planet, and that number is rapidly increasing... we are on the cusp of a serious overpopulation crisis. Yet, we are pushing safety so hard that it will end up destroying the enjoyability of life for perhaps millions of people. I think we need to take a serious look at ourselves. Some things are just silly, this mindless 'safety at any cost' mentality that dominates everything these days is most certainly one of those silly things.
You made no mention of safety in your original post.
Intercar communication is not a requirement for self driving cars, nor is it required to get many of the safety benefits. Yes, the case where all cars communicate with each other is ideal from a safety and efficiency standpoint, but it is not mandatory. Self driving cars that don't communicate will still remove drunk drivers and tired drivers from the road. It will remove people talking on cell phones and people texting.
It's not safety at any cost. Safety at any cost would be banning cars completely. This is the natural progression of automotive technology, and since there's clearly a market for it, it's just a matter of time before it's a common feature on new cars.
I fail to see how the total population of the Earth is relevant to the discussion. If you're suggesting we avoid improving product safety as a method of controlling overpopulation, I hope you've already removed the seat belts and airbags from your car. We all have to do our part, right?
I made no mention of the word "safety" in my original post, but I guess you didn't see that "reduce accidents" bit in my original post. That is a direct acknowledgement of the safety aspect, since by reducing accidents, you obviously increase safety.
But yes, it is a matter of time before it's a common feature on new cars. Then only a matter of time before it becomes mandatory, as has happened with every other bit of of new automotive technology. Seat belts, airbags, OBD-II, traction/stability control, throttle-by-wire, etc.
And I'm not suggesting we avoid product safety, just that we stop being so obsessed with it.
And the mention of throttle-by-wire brings up the whole other side of my issue with the idea of a driverless car, even if it never becomes mandatory; all of the car's control systems (throttle, brakes, steering) will have to be electronic, i.e. by-wire.
I'm bitter about throttle-by-wire. Brake-by-wire and steer-by-wire? Not just No, but HELL NO. If I wanted to feel as if I were playing a video game, I'd probably just play a video game...but I actually want the feel of the car and the feel of the road. Kiss that goodbye with steer-by-wire.
Why not get out of that cage and on two wheels if you want the "feel of the road"?
Bring on the driverless car, I say! By removing the weakest link on the road, the entire highway system gets so much more efficient, it is so worth it. Vehicles controlled by computer can run mere inches apart front to back and side to side, so the capacity of a typical urban freeway has just been jacked up like 7 fold. And because they are computer controlled, everything can move fast. I foresee a future where a single lane of motor vehicles streams into a city at rush hour doing 85 mph while individual cars pop in and out of the stream at various exits. More efficient use of space, more efficient use of fuel, more efficient use of time.
And then there's the safety. If you're scared of computers killing you, you need to remember that over 40,000 people are killed every single year in the United States in motor vehicle collisions. 40,000 And that's just the US. Nearly 100% of that is human freaking error. Statistically speaking, commuting by automobile is the single most dangerous thing most people do every single day (well, except for the combination of eating and not moving). No car computer glitch is going get anywhere near that many people killed. This isn't some stupid warning label on a bottle of Coke telling you not to point it at your face while opening it. It's the population of a typical suburb dead and gone and we are on the verge of achieving the technology to end this slaughter.
I don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car. It's the same reason we don't want to have Amish buggies on the damn interstate. Don't worry, there will always be places for people to take their old-mobiles and play race car driver or splash through mud puddles or waste tire tread or whatever else motor sports enthusiasts get off on. The rest will be happy to not have to risk their frickin' lives just to get to work.
"Computer, take me to 123 Fake Street and use River Drive. I feel like looking at the water today."
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2013, 12:10:36 PM
"Computer, take me to 123 Fake Street and use River Drive. I feel like looking at the water today."
"computer, take a left right now. seriously, right now. that's the old alignment. even if it's not on your map, we're taking it. continue driving straight. ooh, a bit to the left. this road - of which you are not aware, as it is covered in grass - is slightly curving. perhaps it would be more efficient if, instead of attempting to give commands verbally, I might use some kind of a wheel-like device which I manipulate with my hands?"
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2013, 12:10:36 PM
And then there's the safety. If you're scared of computers killing you, you need to remember that over 40,000 people are killed every single year in the United States in motor vehicle collisions. 40,000 And that's just the US. Nearly 100% of that is human freaking error. Statistically speaking, commuting by automobile is the single most dangerous thing most people do every single day (well, except for the combination of eating and not moving). No car computer glitch is going get anywhere near that many people killed. This isn't some stupid warning label on a bottle of Coke telling you not to point it at your face while opening it. It's the population of a typical suburb dead and gone and we are on the verge of achieving the technology to end this slaughter.
Actually, the estimate of over 40,000 is old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year). The current one is well under 40,000 total, and last year (2012) did not even break 30,000 for the first nine months of the year. The real number to use for highway fatalities is not total fatalities, but fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. That number is extremely low at 1.10 for 2011, from a high of 24.09 in 1921. It's fallen just about every year since 1921. In addition, per 100,000 of US population, the number is also very low at 10.3876 per 100,000 in population in 2011, down from 29.357 per 100,000 in population in 1937.
There really is no slaughter by these numbers, and you are far more likely to die from cancer or heart disease than a motor vehicle accident. You are also far, far more likely to die from old age than a motor vehicle accident. Last I looked, life expectancy is over 70 years for both men and women in the US.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2013, 12:10:36 PM
I don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car. It's the same reason we don't want to have Amish buggies on the damn interstate. Don't worry, there will always be places for people to take their old-mobiles and play race car driver or splash through mud puddles or waste tire tread or whatever else motor sports enthusiasts get off on. The rest will be happy to not have to risk their frickin' lives just to get to work.
Don't assume that driverless cars will improve lives everywhere. Rural areas of the country rely on roads to get farm implements, tractors, and yields from place to place. Driverless tractors you say? Ha. The erosive quality of some dirt more than requires
anything that is driven in the field to have a competent
person driving any farm vehicle.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 19, 2013, 10:45:42 PMwe are on the cusp of a serious overpopulation crisis.
We not - in fact, the crisis we are heading for (if demographic trends continue as they are now) is, while not the opposite problem to overpopulation, a falling off the other side of the goat.
That said, that other problem (a top-heavy demographic pyramid caused by people living longer and not being replaced at the bottom of the pyramid with babies) is also fixed by your suggestion to lower life expectancy by making life more dangerous.
Quote from: NE2 on August 19, 2013, 10:54:29 PMDo you realize that safer sex can help with the problem?
It has.
The main reason for western population increases (even the much-more-fertile-than-Europe USA isn't breeding at replacement rate) currently is increased life expectancy.
When the boomers die off in a decade or two, population in the west will be in decline unless something changes re: birth rate. And breed-like-rabbits countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East (esp the Middle East) will go the same way about 50 years time when the generation being born now starts reaching life expectancy (as their birth rates are declining quite quickly).
Top heavy demographic pyramids are a different kind of bad thing to overpopulation and Crazy Volvo Guy's solution of making life less safe deals with both, unlike your making sex more 'safe' which causes the former.
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 20, 2013, 12:47:07 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2013, 12:10:36 PM
I don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car. It's the same reason we don't want to have Amish buggies on the damn interstate. Don't worry, there will always be places for people to take their old-mobiles and play race car driver or splash through mud puddles or waste tire tread or whatever else motor sports enthusiasts get off on. The rest will be happy to not have to risk their frickin' lives just to get to work.
Don't assume that driverless cars will improve lives everywhere. Rural areas of the country rely on roads to get farm implements, tractors, and yields from place to place. Driverless tractors you say? Ha. The erosive quality of some dirt more than requires anything that is driven in the field to have a competent person driving any farm vehicle.
How are tractors related to the discussion? Is it that they drive on roads to get around? Nobody wants to ban non-automatic vehicles from the roads. There will still be pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, trucks, and non-automatic cars.
Quote from: realjd on August 20, 2013, 05:14:57 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 20, 2013, 12:47:07 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2013, 12:10:36 PM
I don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car. It's the same reason we don't want to have Amish buggies on the damn interstate. Don't worry, there will always be places for people to take their old-mobiles and play race car driver or splash through mud puddles or waste tire tread or whatever else motor sports enthusiasts get off on. The rest will be happy to not have to risk their frickin' lives just to get to work.
Don't assume that driverless cars will improve lives everywhere. Rural areas of the country rely on roads to get farm implements, tractors, and yields from place to place. Driverless tractors you say? Ha. The erosive quality of some dirt more than requires anything that is driven in the field to have a competent person driving any farm vehicle.
How are tractors related to the discussion? Is it that they drive on roads to get around? Nobody wants to ban non-automatic vehicles from the roads. There will still be pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, trucks, and non-automatic cars.
Triplemultiplex implied that he wanted to see manually driven cars banned, at least from freeways. And yes, to be 100% effective with reducing accidents, manually driven cars do have to be banned from the roadways.
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 20, 2013, 05:49:22 PM
And yes, to be 100% effective with reducing accidents, manually driven cars do have to be banned from the roadways.
And goats have to be implanted with microchips to keep them from wandering onto the freeway.
Quote from: realjd on August 19, 2013, 04:01:09 PMAlso, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.
Fact: With the reduced headways being touted as part of the automatic car programs, all it takes is one deer in the road to initiate massive calamity.
Quote from: Steve on August 20, 2013, 08:34:26 PM
Fact: With the reduced headways being touted as part of the automatic car programs, all it takes is one deer in the road to initiate massive calamity.
Fact: Driverless cars will have frickin laser beams to eliminate deer.
Quote from: NE2 on August 20, 2013, 08:37:22 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 20, 2013, 08:34:26 PM
Fact: With the reduced headways being touted as part of the automatic car programs, all it takes is one deer in the road to initiate massive calamity.
Fact: Driverless cars will have frickin laser beams to eliminate deer.
Also: cyclists and pedestrians. In the name of safety.
Quote from: NE2 on August 20, 2013, 11:14:27 AM
Why not get out of that cage and on two wheels if you want the "feel of the road"?
Because a car is more than just a cage to me. If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't keep two 20+ year old RWD Turbo Volvos around. There are plenty of vehicles that get much better fuel economy that I'd probably have.
And in case anyone is wondering why my tone in this thread is so bitter and hostile:
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2013, 12:10:36 PMI don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car.
It's that kind of fucking attitude, right there. Marginalization due to a gross lack of understanding of anyone's preferences other than his own.
I have a better idea to increase efficiency and safety, while still being able to appease people like me: massive expansion of public transit in all its forms, followed by a massive increase in the skill and competency requirements for getting a basic driver's license. That gets most of the mindless masses (hey, look, I can play the selfish marginalization game too!!) out of the cars they hate driving so much and into vastly safer and more efficient means of transport to and from work, which will in turn reduce traffic counts and congestion, and with the increase in the competency and skill levels of those still licensed, the roads will be safer and faster, and myself and like-minded people will still get to actually drive our cars.
Oh, but that's
crazy talk!!!!I guess now might be a good time for me to just bow out, eh?
Shit. Is it bad if I agree with a strawman?
Quote from: Steve on August 20, 2013, 08:34:26 PM
Quote from: realjd on August 19, 2013, 04:01:09 PMAlso, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.
Fact: With the reduced headways being touted as part of the automatic car programs, all it takes is one deer in the road to initiate massive calamity.
Fact: Deer in the road are
bad - moose in the road are much worse.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2013, 12:22:25 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 20, 2013, 08:34:26 PM
Fact: With the reduced headways being touted as part of the automatic car programs, all it takes is one deer in the road to initiate massive calamity.
Fact: Deer in the road are bad - moose in the road are much worse.
While animals in the road can cause serious problems with an automated car, I am curious as to what one would do with suddenly-deteriorating road or weather conditions (debris, snow, minor flooding, etc).
I don't understand how a driverless car will operate the clutch and move the gearshift.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2013, 03:51:48 PM
I don't understand how a driverless car will operate the clutch and move the gearshift.
there wouldn't be literally a clutch and a gearshift, in the sense of two controls designed for human ergonomics.
an automatic transmission already moves the equivalent of a clutch and a gearshift. it isn't too difficult to take that one step further and put a controller on top of it. it's been done... well before Google self-driving cars, even.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2013, 03:51:48 PM
I don't understand how a driverless car will operate the clutch and move the gearshift.
The same way the VW "DSG" gearbox does, same way the "automatic" transmissions in 18 wheelers do. They are automated manual transmissions.
I was being snarky. I know it's another ploy to try to phase out the proper manual gearbox. All the more reason not to want a driverless car.
They went wrong when they replaced the crank with a starter.
Quote from: NE2 on August 21, 2013, 04:59:06 PM
They went wrong when they replaced the crank with a starter.
Heh. I read somewhere that the introduction of the electric starter opened the road to a new breed of driver–women. Some might argue that seriously underscores your point.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2013, 05:12:36 PM
Heh. I read somewhere that the introduction of the electric starter opened the road to a new breed of driver–women. Some might argue that seriously underscores your point.
honestly, in all my experience driving, I've never seen a gender disparity in moronic behavior. so I'm not sure where the stereotype comes from.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2013, 05:14:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2013, 05:12:36 PM
Heh. I read somewhere that the introduction of the electric starter opened the road to a new breed of driver–women. Some might argue that seriously underscores your point.
honestly, in all my experience driving, I've never seen a gender disparity in moronic behavior. so I'm not sure where the stereotype comes from.
90% of women drive more feminine than 90% of men. another fact: African American drivers are more likely to be black than Chinese drivers.
Not sure if this is on topic, but:
Literally driverless cars. There is no driver in the car.
I have seen them in the movie Cars, but not in real life.
Quote from: 1 on August 21, 2013, 07:33:08 PM
Not sure if this is on topic, but:
Literally driverless cars. There is no driver in the car.
I have seen them in the movie Cars, but not in real life.
That's what driverless cars are; they're allowed (on a testing basis currently) in California, Nevada, Florida, and D.C.
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 21, 2013, 07:44:15 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 21, 2013, 07:33:08 PM
Not sure if this is on topic, but:
Literally driverless cars. There is no driver in the car.
I have seen them in the movie Cars, but not in real life.
That's what driverless cars are; they're allowed (on a testing basis currently) in California, Nevada, Florida, and D.C.
Yeah but somebody still has to be behind the wheel, they just aren't actively maneuvering the car.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2013, 05:14:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2013, 05:12:36 PM
Heh. I read somewhere that the introduction of the electric starter opened the road to a new breed of driver–women. Some might argue that seriously underscores your point.
honestly, in all my experience driving, I've never seen a gender disparity in moronic behavior. so I'm not sure where the stereotype comes from.
I've seen it. In my experience, it's a totally valid stereotype.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2013, 05:14:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2013, 05:12:36 PM
Heh. I read somewhere that the introduction of the electric starter opened the road to a new breed of driver–women. Some might argue that seriously underscores your point.
honestly, in all my experience driving, I've never seen a gender disparity in moronic behavior. so I'm not sure where the stereotype comes from.
Notice I was very careful in my wording: "Some might argue ...." That is, I'm not necessarily arguing it myself. :biggrin:
Quote from: Takumi on August 21, 2013, 09:57:48 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2013, 05:14:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2013, 05:12:36 PM
Heh. I read somewhere that the introduction of the electric starter opened the road to a new breed of driver—women. Some might argue that seriously underscores your point.
honestly, in all my experience driving, I've never seen a gender disparity in moronic behavior. so I'm not sure where the stereotype comes from.
I've seen it. In my experience, it's a totally valid stereotype.
I promise I have more time behind the wheel than probably anyone else here, and I see no basis for the stereotype.
"Women are inferior drivers" is a pretty sexist statement to make if you don't have any data to back it up other than personal anecdotes (which of course are quite subject to confirmation bias if you're looking for 'evidence' for a preconceived notion that women are worse drivers).
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 22, 2013, 10:12:18 PM
"Women are inferior drivers" is a pretty sexist statement to make if you don't have any data to back it up other than personal anecdotes (which of course are quite subject to confirmation bias if you're looking for 'evidence' for a preconceived notion that women are worse drivers).
Did anyone make that statement?
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2013, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 22, 2013, 10:12:18 PM
"Women are inferior drivers" is a pretty sexist statement to make if you don't have any data to back it up other than personal anecdotes (which of course are quite subject to confirmation bias if you're looking for 'evidence' for a preconceived notion that women are worse drivers).
Did anyone make that statement?
Takumi said "It's a valid stereotype", the stereotype being referenced being that of women being inferior drivers. So it while it wasn't worded that way, that was the message that was to be taken from it, yes.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 20, 2013, 11:39:21 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 20, 2013, 12:10:36 PMI don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car.
It's that kind of fucking attitude, right there. Marginalization due to a gross lack of understanding of anyone's preferences other than his own.
I have a better idea to increase efficiency and safety, while still being able to appease people like me: massive expansion of public transit in all its forms, followed by a massive increase in the skill and competency requirements for getting a basic driver's license. That gets most of the mindless masses (hey, look, I can play the selfish marginalization game too!!) out of the cars they hate driving so much and into vastly safer and more efficient means of transport to and from work, which will in turn reduce traffic counts and congestion, and with the increase in the competency and skill levels of those still licensed, the roads will be safer and faster, and myself and like-minded people will still get to actually drive our cars.
Public transit isn't necessarily more efficient. It's contextual; it depends on how many people are using it, and that depends on where people's origins and destinations are relative to a given transit system.
From what I've last heard, the current proposals for a system of "smart highways" and "driverless" cars involve manual car operation on surface streets and "driverless" mode kicking in when a car gets on a freeway. Frankly, I'm not thrilled about this idea any more than you are, because freeways are often the most fun roads to drive on (and most of the intricate signage with elaborate patterns of arrows would be made irrelevant by driverlessness). Hypothetically, we could see a system of "driverless" express lanes and driver-operated "local" lanes, or a system of "driverless" trunk freeways and driver-operated feeder freeways, or both.
I was discussing this with a friend a few years ago, and he compared my love for driving cars to the way some people preferred to get around by riding horses. I tend to believe that you can't stop something from being made obsolete.
Public transit is not a one size fits all solution for every city's traffic problems. In sprawled out midwestern cities, it would cost trillions of dollars to put in effective light rail systems. It might work for NYC, but it won't work for KC.
An episode of Doctor Who reminded me of this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28aDAXC9EoE