User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:07:45 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup, and insurance companies are begging for it. If computers won't be better drivers than humans, by and large. Then why would insurance companies WANT drivers to be getting into more accidents and costing the insurance companies more money?  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I have no trouble believing that computers will drive cars more safely than the general public. Yup, and insurance companies are begging for it. If computers won't be better drivers than humans, by and large. Then why would insurance companies WANT drivers to be getting into more accidents and costing the insurance companies more money? But HKUSP45C assures us premiums will go down, as the market commands it must, so that "less money" they're paying out with super safe cars will be forfeited by the loss of incoming revenue. Yeah, that's likely. This thread truly delivers on future-optimism overriding the reality we live in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:08:23 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't wait. Imma be a car pimp. Gonna buy a dozen of those things. Make them take people where they want to go. Come home to recharge, back out on the streets. Need a pizza? My car will show up, throw the pie in the seat... zooom. Off it goes. Maybe even a few shaggin wagons. Install a waterbed an one of those internet linked fleshlights... The future is HUUUUUUUGE! My personal car, I want the interior to be set up like one of the teacups at the fair...  It will completely revolutionize delivery services, in their totality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:09:30 PM EST
[#3]
I'd trust it to drive more than the rest of you. For the deal of not having other drivers I would give it up myself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:09:56 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I didn't like anti-lock brakes when they first came out. Especially on snow. At some point I realized the computer did a better job of pumping the brakes than I did. Giving up all control would be difficult but I do it on airplane. Yeah but do you still like the autopilot when other planes are flying across your path.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:10:05 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But HKUSP45C assures us premiums will go down, as the market commands it must, so that "less money" they're paying out with super safe cars will be forfeited by the loss of incoming revenue. Yeah, that's likely. This thread truly delivers on future-optimism overriding the reality we live in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no trouble believing that computers will drive cars more safely than the general public. Yup, and insurance companies are begging for it. If computers won't be better drivers than humans, by and large. Then why would insurance companies WANT drivers to be getting into more accidents and costing the insurance companies more money?
But HKUSP45C assures us premiums will go down, as the market commands it must, so that "less money" they're paying out with super safe cars will be forfeited by the loss of incoming revenue. Yeah, that's likely. This thread truly delivers on future-optimism overriding the reality we live in. I assured you that the market works that way. You pointed out, and I agreed that the insurance market isn't free from manipulation. I still think costs for insurance will go down. But, like everything else we're discussing in this thread, it's just a guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:12:27 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:13:00 PM EST
[#7]
I want a big, driverless RV.
Big glass observation deck with a couch and fridge. A nice bedroom and kitchen. Like old school train travel, but it goes anywhere there is a road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:16:26 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I want a big, driverless RV. Big glass observation deck with a couch and fridge. A nice bedroom and kitchen. Like old school train travel, but it goes anywhere there is a road. That would be bad ass. Sorta like a driverless party bus. But I'm sure someone will still have to be "DD". I doubt the .gov will say it's fine that everyone gets drunk off their ass while traveling across the country. There will be times when a person will have to take over. Such as finding a parking spot in a dirt parking lot or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:16:26 PM EST
[#9]
Every robot car data service provider will have an option to select for sending dangerous driver alerts to the police. Since half the drivers in the nation are tradcon bluehair qtips yelling at the young whippersnappers going 5mph over the limit, there will be an army of mobile ticket cameras roving the roads. One minor violation and ten pictures in 4k will be sent to the police for a ticket in the mail.
It's going to be great. Like an episode of Black Mirror. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:20:01 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every robot car data service provider will have an option to select for sending dangerous driver alerts to the police. Since half the drivers in the nation are tradcon bluehair qtips yelling at the young whippersnappers going 5mph over the limit, there will be an army of mobile ticket cameras roving the roads. One minor violation and ten pictures in 4k will be sent to the police for a ticket in the mail. It's going to be great. Like an episode of Black Mirror. They could do that now, they lack only the will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:23:28 PM EST
[#11]
How is that? There is little infrastructure. Driverless cars give that - full cameras, data, and radar, all integrated. All the gov has to do is parasitize it. I just made up that word parasitize. I'm going with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:43:29 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember reading somewhere (I'm not to pretend I know it to be true) that the highways and interstates in the US are engineered to be safely piloted by humans at ~100MPH. So, if that's the case, ~150MPH by computers may not be so farcical. Yeah maybe not. It's going to be interesting watching the evolution of this tech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:44:55 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want a big, driverless RV. Big glass observation deck with a couch and fridge. A nice bedroom and kitchen. Like old school train travel, but it goes anywhere there is a road. How sweet would it be to load the family up at 2100 and be 1,000 miles away 10 hours later when you get up in the morning? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 12:46:01 PM EST
[#14]
Autopilot didn't land 1549 in the Hudson, saving 155 people. Sully did. Self driving cars are looking to be great under ideal conditions. I don't trust them in the multitude of situations that the developers aren't thinking of. Maybe one day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 1:01:06 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Autopilot didn't land 1549 in the Hudson, saving 155 people. Sully did. Self driving cars are looking to be great under ideal conditions. I don't trust them in the multitude of situations that the developers aren't thinking of. Maybe one day. Autopilot isn't even close to the same technology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 1:07:52 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is that? There is little infrastructure. Driverless cars give that - full cameras, data, and radar, all integrated. All the gov has to do is parasitize it. I just made up that word parasitize. I'm going with it. In the same amount of time, and with less effort, the .gov could simply require all new vehicles equipped with a black box that connects to cell phones and reports any law breaking activity .... for your safety, of course. Or one that connects your WiFi at home and uploads the day's driving habits, complete with citations in the mail in 3 days or less. We've already proven in the USSCt. that the feds can force you to buy products you don't want. This isn't a stretch. All it takes is the will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 1:11:18 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about installing RFID chips in the reflector bumps and then require reflector bumps on all road markings? Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about installing RFID chips in the reflector bumps and then require reflector bumps on all road markings? That would be great once they're virtually everywhere, suck until then. For the proper driver-less car experience (using the car while drunk, cooking or watching movies in the car, having a car without a license) you need a car with no controls so it needs to be able to go almost everywhere. Some kind of embedded tagging system in the road is probably needed if we're going to get serious about self-driving cars. Quoted:
I like driving and riding a bike. If I wanted to be safe, I'd telecommute and order everything off Amazon. I like driving as well but if I had to commute again I would love a self-driving car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 3:11:03 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The car would not have been exhausted, so likely would have reacted more quickly than you did. Also, by the time we get a high number of self-driving cars on the road, there is a good chance they will communicate location and vectors to each other and thus your car would have known the Land Rover was there before you even saw it, and acted pro-actively to avoid an incident without requiring sudden, evasive action. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I remember driving home after a vacation in Maine. I was completely exhausted after a sixteen hour drive. I drove through a blind curve and there was a Land Rover sitting in front of me waiting to make a left turn. I locked up the brakes but felt like I was going to kill the guy in my lane. After a Jeep passed in the oncoming lane I moved into the oncoming lane to avoid the guy in front of me. Missed both of the cars by inches. A computer wouldn't do that. The car would not have been exhausted, so likely would have reacted more quickly than you did. Also, by the time we get a high number of self-driving cars on the road, there is a good chance they will communicate location and vectors to each other and thus your car would have known the Land Rover was there before you even saw it, and acted pro-actively to avoid an incident without requiring sudden, evasive action. That would be nice. And to be honest, I felt like a idiot. What's a little worrisome is that we have the technology today that will slow a train prior to a sharp curve to prevent it from leaving the tracks. It still happens. Infrastructure investment is expensive and I'm not certain that it will happen. The idea of being able to take a nap in the driver's seat is appealing. It's going to be interesting during the next 20 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 3:15:43 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would be great once they're virtually everywhere, suck until then. For the proper driver-less car experience (using the car while drunk, cooking or watching movies in the car, having a car without a license) you need a car with no controls so it needs to be able to go almost everywhere. Some kind of embedded tagging system in the road is probably needed if we're going to get serious about self-driving cars. I like driving as well but if I had to commute again I would love a self-driving car. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about installing RFID chips in the reflector bumps and then require reflector bumps on all road markings? That would be great once they're virtually everywhere, suck until then. For the proper driver-less car experience (using the car while drunk, cooking or watching movies in the car, having a car without a license) you need a car with no controls so it needs to be able to go almost everywhere. Some kind of embedded tagging system in the road is probably needed if we're going to get serious about self-driving cars. Quoted:
I like driving and riding a bike. If I wanted to be safe, I'd telecommute and order everything off Amazon. I like driving as well but if I had to commute again I would love a self-driving car. Like any new technology, there's going to be a long and winding upswing in the wild environment to get it "good enough" for total application. I honestly doubt anyone in this thread will live to see the day the last driver controlled vehicle is banned from the streets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 3:19:36 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll be asleep before it reaches the end of the driveway.  Pretty much this |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 3:23:17 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The computer likely would have never gotten into that situation to begin with, but by some chance it did, it would have dealt with it faster and more efficiently than you were even capable of. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I remember driving home after a vacation in Maine. I was completely exhausted after a sixteen hour drive. I drove through a blind curve and there was a Land Rover sitting in front of me waiting to make a left turn. I locked up the brakes but felt like I was going to kill the guy in my lane. After a Jeep passed in the oncoming lane I moved into the oncoming lane to avoid the guy in front of me. Missed both of the cars by inches. A computer wouldn't do that. The computer likely would have never gotten into that situation to begin with, but by some chance it did, it would have dealt with it faster and more efficiently than you were even capable of. Faster, no doubt. I'm just not sure if a computer can be programmed to decide to take the ditch and trees to the right or to throw the dice to try to avoid everyone by going to the left. A tired human or bad software are both dangerous. It's going to interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 3:24:47 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah but do you still like the autopilot when other planes are flying across your path.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I didn't like anti-lock brakes when they first came out. Especially on snow. At some point I realized the computer did a better job of pumping the brakes than I did. Giving up all control would be difficult but I do it on airplane. Yeah but do you still like the autopilot when other planes are flying across your path.... 
I tend to close my eyes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 3:40:35 PM EST
[#23]
I'll treat it like cruise control, which is how it's supposed to work anyhow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 6:25:37 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about installing RFID chips in the reflector bumps and then require reflector bumps on all road markings? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Or would you sit behind the wheel like a hyper-alert guard dog just waiting to stomp the breaks, hit the button, whatever option is left to you? I'm not down with that shit, I don't care how they package it. I would rather drive. I would rather a computer drive than quite a few humans I know... Quoted: The technology seems very new, and not tested much in the "real world". I can't imagine that the system would be able to react quick enough in every situation that might pop up. Not sure I would trust it. Volvo have had auto-brake on production vehicles since 2007 and Toyota have been running driver-less cars on their campus for a very long time. Quoted: I wonder how well it is going to work on rural gravel/dirt roads that are often one lane wide and if you meet a tractor or another vehicle someone has to back up to the nearest wide spot or driveway. If it is raining it will need to know to put it in 4wd so it can make some of the hills. Sometimes part of the roads get washed out and have deep ruts that would cause most cars to get stuck or high centered if they were driven into. The volvo self-drive system requires you to take over when it can't see road markings. The bigger problem for driver-less cars with no controls is what they do when there's just enough snow to obscure the road markings. How about installing RFID chips in the reflector bumps and then require reflector bumps on all road markings? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 6:29:53 PM EST
[#25]
If it blocks just one BS fishing expedition by an overzealous JBT, then I'm all in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2016 7:12:00 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Talk about some serious costs. Imagine all those hundreds of miles of nothing out in BFE midwest that would need marked. Billions of dollars spent that will probably be destroyed after the first snow storm when a plow drives over them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: How about installing RFID chips in the reflector bumps and then require reflector bumps on all road markings? Don't forget 10' animal and pedestrian walls over all streets, highways and thoroughfares, might as well cover it all with a solar-cell covered roof to provide free energy while you're at it. Welcome to FUTUREWORLD™ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 2:42:59 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit. Pedestrians, animals, debris in the roads, inclement weather, broken or dirty sensors, failure of software or hacking, a computer just isn't exempt from those shitty moral and judgment calls because Google did some testing and it kind of works ok. An empty cardboard box blows across the street, the car can either veer onto the berm where people are standing or run over the box (no time to brake). What does it do? A human being can figure out very quickly the box is not solid and it's an easy moral judgment call. You think a computer will get that right based on programming? Even if it's 95% good, and 20% better than humans, the liability will fucking CRUSH the company that kills innocents over it (and it's going to happen). Class action mayhem, baby, when Adelphi or Microsoft or whoever's programming squashes a crowd of people or two, or 10. As it stands now, the driver is culpable for that, not Chevy. But, when Chevy is at all the wheels that caused death? They'll get stomped by the trial lawyers. Watch and see. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, never. How can they program a car to make a split second decision to react to a situation that is unwinnable? Total hypothetical, crash is imminent, car doesn't veer and likelihood of great injury or death to passengers 95%, if car veers, 75% chance bystander injury or death with car occupants injury rate falling to 25% w/ no deaths. Artificial intelligence and proper fuzzy logic are years if not decades away from being that good. Even then still, some pencil pusher/bean counter will be setting the threshold of who gets fucked, no thanks. I'll rely on my brain and much better than average reaction/reflexes. None of that will be a problem when every car on the road is driven by computers. Bullshit. Pedestrians, animals, debris in the roads, inclement weather, broken or dirty sensors, failure of software or hacking, a computer just isn't exempt from those shitty moral and judgment calls because Google did some testing and it kind of works ok. An empty cardboard box blows across the street, the car can either veer onto the berm where people are standing or run over the box (no time to brake). What does it do? A human being can figure out very quickly the box is not solid and it's an easy moral judgment call. You think a computer will get that right based on programming? Even if it's 95% good, and 20% better than humans, the liability will fucking CRUSH the company that kills innocents over it (and it's going to happen). Class action mayhem, baby, when Adelphi or Microsoft or whoever's programming squashes a crowd of people or two, or 10. As it stands now, the driver is culpable for that, not Chevy. But, when Chevy is at all the wheels that caused death? They'll get stomped by the trial lawyers. Watch and see. I posted a link earlier, but all of the major automotive companies and most of the major technology companies are involved in this venture. 10s of billions of dollars of private sector money are being spent each year to implement this in the future. If they want it to happen, it will happen, and it will work. We're not talking in .gov dollars here, we're talking about private dollars and results will be seen, as they always are. Millions of consumers in America alone spend hundreds of hours in their cars each year, away from all encompassing advertising and social media content. Where else is there a larger, untapped area of time for these companies to infiltrate your mind with paid content? Sleep is the only one, and you're ignorant if you think they're not working on that, too. If your argument is that it won't fully work in 10 years, I'm not arguing with you. 100 years? Throw WWIII in for shits and giggles and our technology trajectory far outpaces that. Like I said, the only question is when, not if. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 2:53:02 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: snip drive me into a lake. That's if you're lucky. There's a lot of stuff to drive us into way before they find us a lake; other cars, trucks (coming the opposite way), walls, walking pedestrians, animals. Long list. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 3:00:18 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I posted a link earlier, but all of the major automotive companies and most of the major technology companies are involved in this venture. 10s of billions of dollars of private sector money are being spent each year to implement this in the future. If they want it to happen, it will happen, and it will work. We're not talking in .gov dollars here, we're talking about private dollars and results will be seen, as they always are. Millions of consumers in America alone spend hundreds of hours in their cars each year, away from all encompassing advertising and social media content. Where else is there a larger, untapped area of time for these companies to infiltrate your mind with paid content? Sleep is the only one, and you're ignorant if you think they're not working on that, too. If your argument is that it won't fully work in 10 years, I'm not arguing with you. 100 years? Throw WWIII in for shits and giggles and our technology trajectory far outpaces that. Like I said, the only question is when, not if. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, never. How can they program a car to make a split second decision to react to a situation that is unwinnable? Total hypothetical, crash is imminent, car doesn't veer and likelihood of great injury or death to passengers 95%, if car veers, 75% chance bystander injury or death with car occupants injury rate falling to 25% w/ no deaths. Artificial intelligence and proper fuzzy logic are years if not decades away from being that good. Even then still, some pencil pusher/bean counter will be setting the threshold of who gets fucked, no thanks. I'll rely on my brain and much better than average reaction/reflexes. None of that will be a problem when every car on the road is driven by computers. Bullshit. Pedestrians, animals, debris in the roads, inclement weather, broken or dirty sensors, failure of software or hacking, a computer just isn't exempt from those shitty moral and judgment calls because Google did some testing and it kind of works ok. An empty cardboard box blows across the street, the car can either veer onto the berm where people are standing or run over the box (no time to brake). What does it do? A human being can figure out very quickly the box is not solid and it's an easy moral judgment call. You think a computer will get that right based on programming? Even if it's 95% good, and 20% better than humans, the liability will fucking CRUSH the company that kills innocents over it (and it's going to happen). Class action mayhem, baby, when Adelphi or Microsoft or whoever's programming squashes a crowd of people or two, or 10. As it stands now, the driver is culpable for that, not Chevy. But, when Chevy is at all the wheels that caused death? They'll get stomped by the trial lawyers. Watch and see. I posted a link earlier, but all of the major automotive companies and most of the major technology companies are involved in this venture. 10s of billions of dollars of private sector money are being spent each year to implement this in the future. If they want it to happen, it will happen, and it will work. We're not talking in .gov dollars here, we're talking about private dollars and results will be seen, as they always are. Millions of consumers in America alone spend hundreds of hours in their cars each year, away from all encompassing advertising and social media content. Where else is there a larger, untapped area of time for these companies to infiltrate your mind with paid content? Sleep is the only one, and you're ignorant if you think they're not working on that, too. If your argument is that it won't fully work in 10 years, I'm not arguing with you. 100 years? Throw WWIII in for shits and giggles and our technology trajectory far outpaces that. Like I said, the only question is when, not if. They want it to happen because the government wants it to happen. If they weren't assured of recouping those billions they wouldn't bother with it. Which says to me that this shit will be mandated and sooner rather than later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 3:13:02 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They want it to happen because the government wants it to happen. If they weren't assured of recouping those billions they wouldn't bother with it. Which says to me that this shit will be mandated and sooner rather than later. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, never. How can they program a car to make a split second decision to react to a situation that is unwinnable? Total hypothetical, crash is imminent, car doesn't veer and likelihood of great injury or death to passengers 95%, if car veers, 75% chance bystander injury or death with car occupants injury rate falling to 25% w/ no deaths. Artificial intelligence and proper fuzzy logic are years if not decades away from being that good. Even then still, some pencil pusher/bean counter will be setting the threshold of who gets fucked, no thanks. I'll rely on my brain and much better than average reaction/reflexes. None of that will be a problem when every car on the road is driven by computers. Bullshit. Pedestrians, animals, debris in the roads, inclement weather, broken or dirty sensors, failure of software or hacking, a computer just isn't exempt from those shitty moral and judgment calls because Google did some testing and it kind of works ok. An empty cardboard box blows across the street, the car can either veer onto the berm where people are standing or run over the box (no time to brake). What does it do? A human being can figure out very quickly the box is not solid and it's an easy moral judgment call. You think a computer will get that right based on programming? Even if it's 95% good, and 20% better than humans, the liability will fucking CRUSH the company that kills innocents over it (and it's going to happen). Class action mayhem, baby, when Adelphi or Microsoft or whoever's programming squashes a crowd of people or two, or 10. As it stands now, the driver is culpable for that, not Chevy. But, when Chevy is at all the wheels that caused death? They'll get stomped by the trial lawyers. Watch and see. I posted a link earlier, but all of the major automotive companies and most of the major technology companies are involved in this venture. 10s of billions of dollars of private sector money are being spent each year to implement this in the future. If they want it to happen, it will happen, and it will work. We're not talking in .gov dollars here, we're talking about private dollars and results will be seen, as they always are. Millions of consumers in America alone spend hundreds of hours in their cars each year, away from all encompassing advertising and social media content. Where else is there a larger, untapped area of time for these companies to infiltrate your mind with paid content? Sleep is the only one, and you're ignorant if you think they're not working on that, too. If your argument is that it won't fully work in 10 years, I'm not arguing with you. 100 years? Throw WWIII in for shits and giggles and our technology trajectory far outpaces that. Like I said, the only question is when, not if. They want it to happen because the government wants it to happen. If they weren't assured of recouping those billions they wouldn't bother with it. Which says to me that this shit will be mandated and sooner rather than later. The government wants it to happen, because "they" want it to happen. After all, the government is just people. Mostly. Just wait, first it was Obamaphones; next it will be Hillarycars. And every ghetto goblin will have 4 of those, too. Think of the statistics they make up about guns. They'll make someone who holds out on self driving cars look like Hitler x 1000. Between the global warming and safety narrative, it will be cake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 3:27:08 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I want a big, driverless RV. Big glass observation deck with a couch and fridge. A nice bedroom and kitchen. Like old school train travel, but it goes anywhere there is a road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 3:27:43 AM EST
[#32]
I will not own one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 4:49:21 AM EST
[#33]
It's only going to work if they prohibit human driven cars.
In essence, the auto drive utopia will only be able to happen once all other manual vehicles are banned. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 4:59:28 AM EST
[#34]
No. Not on YOUR life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 5:41:25 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's only going to work if they prohibit human driven cars. In essence, the auto drive utopia will only be able to happen once all other manual vehicles are banned. This right here. Anyone in a "manual drive vehicle" would own the road. No one is mentioning the elephant in the room, motorcycles. I have yet to see any of the studies done on motorcycles and computer operated vehicles. As far as the aircraft autopilot and computer car analogy goes, it's the same but different. Planes don't stop, go in reverse, parallel park, operate within 24 inches of another plane going in the same or a different direction, have pedestrians jaywalking in front of it or any of the other BS cars on the road have to put up with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 5:42:10 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's only going to work if they prohibit human driven cars. In essence, the auto drive utopia will only be able to happen once all other manual vehicles are banned. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile It's already happening. It's already working amongst a largely human driven car population. So, you were saying... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 5:43:33 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Planes don't stop, go in reverse, parallel park, operate within 24 inches of another plane going in the same or a different direction, have pedestrians jaywalking in front of it or any of the other BS cars on the road have to put up with. Read up on the google cars. They're already doing all of that. And they do it better than a human. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 10:59:53 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Read up on the google cars. They're already doing all of that. And they do it better than a human. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Planes don't stop, go in reverse, parallel park, operate within 24 inches of another plane going in the same or a different direction, have pedestrians jaywalking in front of it or any of the other BS cars on the road have to put up with. Read up on the google cars. They're already doing all of that. And they do it better than a human. Better than mamasita driving to a nail appointment, maybe. Not better than me.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 11:06:25 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Better than mamasita driving to a nail appointment, maybe. Not better than me.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Planes don't stop, go in reverse, parallel park, operate within 24 inches of another plane going in the same or a different direction, have pedestrians jaywalking in front of it or any of the other BS cars on the road have to put up with. Read up on the google cars. They're already doing all of that. And they do it better than a human. Better than mamasita driving to a nail appointment, maybe. Not better than me.
Definitely better than you. Everyone I've met that thought they were a great driver, wasn't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 11:42:04 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's only going to work if they prohibit human driven cars. In essence, the auto drive utopia will only be able to happen once all other manual vehicles are banned. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This, very much this. Apparently many folks (even here) are willing to surrender their most basic rights to convenience and perceived security. I defer to my first post in this thread, I'm glad I'm old so I won't see the dystopian end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 1:28:14 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This, very much this. Apparently many folks (even here) are willing to surrender their most basic rights to convenience and perceived security. I defer to my first post in this thread, I'm glad I'm old so I won't see the dystopian end. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's only going to work if they prohibit human driven cars. In essence, the auto drive utopia will only be able to happen once all other manual vehicles are banned. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This, very much this. Apparently many folks (even here) are willing to surrender their most basic rights to convenience and perceived security. I defer to my first post in this thread, I'm glad I'm old so I won't see the dystopian end. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege in every single state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 3:24:18 PM EST
[#42]
Not to worry you'll have no choice. Progressive ideas need to be mandatory!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 3:25:37 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Definitely better than you. Everyone I've met that thought they were a great driver, wasn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Planes don't stop, go in reverse, parallel park, operate within 24 inches of another plane going in the same or a different direction, have pedestrians jaywalking in front of it or any of the other BS cars on the road have to put up with. Read up on the google cars. They're already doing all of that. And they do it better than a human. Better than mamasita driving to a nail appointment, maybe. Not better than me.
Definitely better than you. Everyone I've met that thought they were a great driver, wasn't. Something like 85 percent of Americans believe they are above average drivers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 3:56:10 PM EST
[#44]
Wait until you are economically forced to by insurance companies....
"Oh...you want to drive YOUR car...so unsafe.... your premium is ten time higher." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 3:58:03 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wake me up when we get there..  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 3:58:27 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait until you are economically forced to by insurance companies.... "Oh...you want to drive YOUR car...so unsafe.... your premium is ten time higher." That's probably going to be one of the first avenues for "suggesting" the American public make the switch. Tax incentives for new driverless cars shortly before or after that. They won't talk about bans until the final 10-15 percent of the "old cars" are on the roads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2016 10:05:40 PM EST
[#47]
My Toyota's only 7 years old, so I figure by the time I'm ready to buy a replacement self-driving cars should have most of the bugs worked out.
As a professional software engineer, I'm looking forward to self-driving cars. Hopefully they come with higher bandwidth caps for a more productive commute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 12:12:53 AM EST
[#48]
How did it work out for the guy in the UK with his Tesla on autopilot?
The camera couldn't distinguish the color of the truck from the sky. Really, Tesla? And I don't know how many Teslas are on the road but I don't believe their claim that their owners have driven 125 million miles without a fatal accident. It's the 125 million miles part that I don't believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 12:29:10 AM EST
[#49]
The day that I can stumble to my car from the local watering hole and say "car, take me home" will be a glorious one. Gotta love technology
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 12:31:31 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The day that I can stumble to my car from the local watering hole and say "car, take me home" will be a glorious one. Gotta love technology Until it drives you full speed into a tractor trailer because it can't see the thing. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
