Didn't realize we were quit up to this point yet, and I'm not really sure what it means to us, but it's here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxHcJTs2Sxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxHcJTs2Sxk
Driverless
- Thread starter Wwabbit
- Start date
Empty Pockets
ex-GT Owner
Imagine the 'fun' hackers (ISIS or whoever) could have with our daily commute. And we all know it eventually could/would happen. Perhaps immediately.
Shoot, who hasn't had their PC 'freeze up' on its own? Imagine a car's 'robotics' deciding to do that when doing 70 mph on a freeway...going into some 'S' curves.
And just WHO would be liable in the event of a crash/collision/wreck?
"I be thinkin' 'bout stuff like this." (Geo. W.)
Shoot, who hasn't had their PC 'freeze up' on its own? Imagine a car's 'robotics' deciding to do that when doing 70 mph on a freeway...going into some 'S' curves.
And just WHO would be liable in the event of a crash/collision/wreck?
"I be thinkin' 'bout stuff like this." (Geo. W.)
Sinovac
GT Owner
GTJack
GT Owner
Its not a case of if it will have a problem, just when. Anything made will fail/break at some point. Driverless car is far too big brother for me. The proponents seem to have the attitude/belief that none of us is competent or trustworthy so we have to have something/someone else take care of us......
Last edited:
Cobrar
GT Owner
As fast as this technology seems to be moving along, there are MANY issues with implementation, read: NOT compliant with the wide range of weather/temperature variations, situational variables/obstacles (pedestrians) by a long shot. And while the technology is interesting, the necessary regulatory, legal and insurance communities are not even remotely plugged into the development. I expect large fortunes will be made and lost on the legal side of it alone.
I recall hearing that one developer (Google) was willing to offer their software at no-cost to an OEM. Wonder why? I would like to see the Google/Stanfords et.al take full ownership of their inventions on implementation.
Sinovac
GT Owner
I agree with you Rex. Although the OEMs will incorporate all the latest collision avoidance systems into the cars, they are not likely to embrace the "driverless" car any time soon, since to do so would mean they own everything that could and will go wrong. Without major changes to existing product liability law, I don't see driverless cars in the foreseeable future. They would make great 1/1 scale RC cars though.
Let's don't forget about the dozens of jumbo jets that auto-land everyday around the world in crummy weather under full computer control - all the way to the brake application and stopping on the center line. And then there's Space-X out there perfecting retro-landing a rocket. Engineers + processing power = yep, it is a brave new world.
x 2. We can't even imagine the precision that may be possible a couple decades down the road.
Cars have become much safer with the application of technology. I don't expect that trend to reverse. I also welcome driving duty being taken out of the hands of those who are less than 100% interested in managing the duty for themselves.
Point is not to compare the complexity of the two tasks for humans, but to show how complex transport tasks can safely be automated. As you say, driving a 747 is indeed no comparison to driving a car, so it's hard to panic over increasingly automated cars. The first time I tried the automated parallel parking in the Flex and saw how staggeringly accurate it was, I'm not gonna lie, I drove around looking for spots to parallel park for at least half an hour just for the fun of it. :lol
I also guarantee some future generation of SoCal people would be the biggest beneficiaries. Technology has the potential to alleviate that horrendous gridlock in ways no human decision making process ever could.
I also guarantee some future generation of SoCal people would be the biggest beneficiaries. Technology has the potential to alleviate that horrendous gridlock in ways no human decision making process ever could.
Cobrar
GT Owner
A relative measure of (some of the) costs associated with above referenced 'driverless' technology. To that you need only add cost of required maintenance, financing, fuel, a small crew and an approved flight plan.
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/p...ail/new-airbus-aircraft-list-prices-for-2015/
These devices incorporate the technology discussed, and also meet the test for insurance, regulatory and legal requirements.
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/p...ail/new-airbus-aircraft-list-prices-for-2015/
These devices incorporate the technology discussed, and also meet the test for insurance, regulatory and legal requirements.
FENZO
GT Owner
We autonomously dock and berth ships to the space station that is traveling at 17,000 mph 220 miles above the earth. Granted that's not cheap, but theres no way I should still be driving myself to work. I'd pay a premium to have a car that would go get its oil changed, or have itself washed, or let me take a nap... Etc.
I'm positive the technology is up to the task now, but like most things the human in the loop is fouling it up.
I'm positive the technology is up to the task now, but like most things the human in the loop is fouling it up.
PeteK
GT Owner
For an autonomous system, flying and landing a jumbo jet is a MUCH easier task than mixing it up in traffic. The separation between airplanes is miles horizontally and thousands of feet vertically, and there is an air traffic control system to maintain those separations. IN traffic everything is close and can change in an instant. The way we use our eyes to assess and be aware of our surroundings and make split-second decisions is a phenomenally difficult task for a robot. Flying along in orbit also is a piece of cake, since the absolute speed is irrelevant, and what's relevant is the "delta V" or relative speed difference. For docking to the space station the dV is VERY slow, on the order of centimeters or millimeters per second.
BlackICE
GT Owner
the Wizard
GT Owner
I lead the team that built the world's first collision avoidance vehicle for GM back in 95. GM had bought Hughes, who I worked for, and who was a radar company. Took it to both Europe and Asia to all the major manufacturers to sort of "seed" the work. Just FYI.....
Bingo my dear fellow man, if people actually "drive" the car sans cell phone, coffee, make-up, reading (yes people "freeway read" in L.A.), shaving, texting (ohh don't even get me started on texting :rofl), and eating etc..., the world of driving your own self will become inherently safer, not to mention the fun of it all, ask yourself then : Do you just want to "sit" in your FGT while it does the thinking/driving for you, or would you rather drive it ? it's elementary my dear Watson... :driving:-- One benefit of course is the Martini one, had one too many, then the car can take you home :lol :lol
the Wizard
GT Owner
The industry believes it's exactly because of all these things that you need these advanced driver systems....that they somehow mitigate the risk of these activities.
Computers and radar/vision systems will do this better someday, but I think we are much farther away from that day than is being implied by the car companies and news media. We still kill 40,000 or so per year, someday that will be considered barbaric.
Computers and radar/vision systems will do this better someday, but I think we are much farther away from that day than is being implied by the car companies and news media. We still kill 40,000 or so per year, someday that will be considered barbaric.
Last edited:
Even in the currently running beta tests, the rate of failure of the control system is FAR smaller than the average human control system. Insurance rates for driverless cars will plummet or at least the rate differential will be very wide with the advantage to the computer controlled cars.
Even the current systems are far more capable at seeing and processing far more information than the human counterpart and as the software develops from each misstep it will improve rapidly. Human drivers ceased learning from accidents long ago. This is far closer than you think.
No one is going to take your GT away but get in an accident with a computer controlled vehicle and it WILL be the human driver at fault, and the computer will have all the evidence to prove so. This tech is going to make manually driving far more expensive as its adopted.
Even the current systems are far more capable at seeing and processing far more information than the human counterpart and as the software develops from each misstep it will improve rapidly. Human drivers ceased learning from accidents long ago. This is far closer than you think.
No one is going to take your GT away but get in an accident with a computer controlled vehicle and it WILL be the human driver at fault, and the computer will have all the evidence to prove so. This tech is going to make manually driving far more expensive as its adopted.
Howard
GT Owner
If the computer driven cars make no errors I will be delighted to have them share the road with me. But if one rear ends me I'm gonna be pissed.
Howard
Howard