It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Will Start Granting Licenses for Driverless Cars in September

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2014 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

the machine will never be perfect
and its better to have some one capable of making real world logic decisions if need be

you seem to be missing the whole point
the whole point is to make it better not make it magic

and again this technology in the long run should be pretty cheap so its not like it will be relegated to use only by the "elite"
wait and see pretty much as soon as this is legal people will be building their own(you can just modify the car you have)......there will probably be legal restrictions for the software you can use and a vehicle inspection (which the dmv already does) or something like that though
edit on 24-5-2014 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: sirhumperdink

No, I totally understand what you're saying, believe me.

But I'm just taking it a step further. If they are really safe enough to let them drive, then let them drive. Including letting the "Non-Driver" sleep, or whatever as part of the "Benefit".

I'm saying that if you still have to be totally alert. Be a good Driver with a good record. Able to take over at any moment. Etc. Then you don't need to have it drive you.

Alert, Good Drivers, who are in control and fit all those requirements are already safe to be on the road anyway. It's not them you have to worry about. It's all the sleepy, drunk, texting, etc drivers that mess it up. But with the rules provided in the OP, they wouldn't be allowed to operate it legally anyway. So there removes a huge reason for them and how they would benefit us. You see what I'm saying???
edit on 24-5-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

but we all know thats not the reality of the situation

you also can not react to things you can not see it could predict an accident before it occurs and react to it or alert you
this car could potentially "see" around itself for quite some distance using radar

collision detection and avoidance shouldnt be an issue that should be fine
the car should in general be safe for all use and would be able to alert you in advance of any situation where youre input would be needed (and in that case you would need to be able to react)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: sirhumperdink

What I'm getting at is that eventually you're going to have to remove the "competent driver" requirement in order for the average common man to want one. Nobody is going to pay the extra money for the vehicle, pay the extra for insurance and whatever else is required if he/she still has to be alert and in total control/prepared to control also.

People will need it to drive for them while they put on makeup, eat, drink, screw, etc. before they'll see the benefit in it.

For example, the reason I like to drive is because just sitting in a car and being an alert passenger is boring as hell. I go nuts after a while not having something to do. So I wouldn't buy a car that drove for me if I still had to pay attention also. Now, if I was allowed to get drunk and sleep on the journey while it drove then I'd see the benefit in having it. Otherwise, I'll just stay alert and drive myself in a cheap normal car.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Double Post
edit on 24-5-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: sirhumperdink

What I'm getting at is that eventually you're going to have to remove the "competent driver" requirement in order for the average common man to want one. Nobody is going to pay the extra money for the vehicle, pay the extra for insurance and whatever else is required if he/she still has to be alert and in total control/prepared to control also.

People will need it to drive for them while they put on makeup, eat, drink, screw, etc. before they'll see the benefit in it.

For example, the reason I like to drive is because just sitting in a car and being an alert passenger is boring as hell. I go nuts after a while not having something to do. So I wouldn't buy a car that drove for me if I still had to pay attention also. Now, if I was allowed to get drunk and sleep on the journey while it drove then I'd see the benefit in having it. Otherwise, I'll just stay alert and drive myself in a cheap normal car.


you still seem to be stuck on the idea these are going to be uber expensive for an appreciable amount of time

and are also still failing to realize the benefits of having a car that can alert you of things you can not see while you drive or drive itself while you hold a conversation or watch a movie and alert you when need be

instead you seem to think if this thing doesnt let you get drunk and pass out in the backseat while it drives you cross country its pointless
edit on 24-5-2014 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: iamhobo

For those of you who are still a bit iffy on the topic of autonomous vehicles, here is a picture which details some of the benefits...





And eventually, due to 'multiple studies touting the safety and financial benefit' driverless cars will become mandatory. Then consumers will be required to upgrade their vehicles nearly as often as they do their cell phone to keep up to date with technological progress.

I Also wonder if the studies take in to account network glitches that would injure/kill vehicle occupants when the driverless coal train doesn't tell the driverless school bus to stop at the railroad crossing, or when the driverless luxury cruise ship collides with a driverless supertanker


Sometimes I think that inventiveness is another word for sheer laziness


On a sidenote I'd be interested in how the figures the number of lives/dollars a computer driven vehicle would save were calculated.



originally posted by: sirhumperdink

hell insurance would go down you could even make a pretty good case for getting rid of it entirely


Fool me once, shame on you...



edit on 24-5-2014 by Lipton because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: sirhumperdink

No, I can see those things. However, I know from experience that in the real world it NEVER works out like it's supposed to and the next best thing always ends up being more of a hassle than it was before. Or if it does benefit some, it's usually only a select few that benefits while the majority just have to put up with yet one more crap feature that they never wanted to begin with.

This will also include having your vehicle constantly updated with new software, by the manufacture only of course, which you will have to pay for in some way, like it or not, even if it's hidden somewhere. The more advanced they start making it the more issues it will bring with it. Sure it might solve a few things, but will bring with it more than it solves. Then there will be new laws and regulations to deal with. New requirements and penalties. Less accountability for errors which are made and legal issues dealing with who or what was responsible.

But maybe I'm wrong and it will all go totally smooth and wonderful. But is that really logical based upon our historical use of new technology?? I'm not saying it's doomed to fail. Or even that eventually it won't work out in the end to some degree. I'm sure it will, eventually if we just continue to work out the kinks. But I just don't see it being all peaches and cream based on past experience. It is just one more way of making everyone less responsible for themselves and more reliant upon technology and less responsible for their own lives and what they do. But maybe that is just where we are headed. Soon after should come the technology that will wipe our own asses for us and we can be totally free from having to do anything for ourselves other than breath and crap ourselves. Ahhh, won't that be freedom!!



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Yep mojo. Thinking that this technology is coming OUR way is fantasy. This tech is for them. For when they don't need us any longer to work for them. It may be all wrapped up in "oh, won't our lives be better when we all have these cars that drive themselves", but it's not for us. Unless we are the guinea pigs they will be using until all the bugs are worked out.

Like everything else in this society, everything is glossed over with "this is going to make our lives better" when in reality the only thing that really motivates new tech is will it make a profit.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The EU intelligence has already been working hard for a long time on orchestrating street traffic jams and other events on the road. They are already able to orchestrate massive traffic jams while hiding them on completely nonsense pretexts.
That is done by neurologically manipulating and controlling large masses of drivers into some specific locations while on the road. Behavioral modifications for a very short term goal is the name of the game in this case.

Moreover by manipulating timings and color changes in traffic lights they can orchestrate various kind of car jams and accidents of many different types as they please.

The EU also believes that these capabilities will have them win WW3. That's obviously not going to be the case. Their control power will end up backfiring horribly.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flanker86

The EU also believes that these capabilities will have them win WW3. That's obviously not going to be the case. Their control power will end up backfiring horribly.


How's a traffic jam going to stop a nuclear missile attack????

Just wondering.....



new topics




 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join