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.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
And the reason your hands need to be on the wheel is its beta testing not a finished product.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
And the reason your hands need to be on the wheel is its beta testing not a finished product.
Right. So Autonomous systems are not quite ready yet in all situations for the occupant to be just a passive passenger. There is still work to be done.
originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: luthier
Drivers who fail at controlling a car have not trained enough.
And yes, control during a skid falls under normal training.
So more training is needed, not removal of driving privileges.
Yes, driverless cars will be awesome for drunks, and the alcohol lobby, they will probably team up with the auto mfgrs and install popup minifridges and keg-o-rators.
Unfortunately, they probably won't be able to afford the DLCs because they are broke from alcohol purchases.
Current tech can address the driving drunk if we wanted it to. I am more for freedom though.
AS far as the tech goes, it could be AI from superman's crystal planet, and it still will lead to a negative impact down the road to those of us that love driving.
"Sorry Mr.Jones, it appears you drive your actual car, studies show that you are at a 300% chance of wrecking vs a SDC, we are going to have to raise your rates by 300%, thank you for your business!"
"Your rate will be dropped by 300%, if you purchase this nice Apple Car, who offers you another 20% off if you sign up for the weekly Apple store stop!"
"Sorry, you may not turn here, there is no magnetic paint on this road"
Sounds like a nightmare really.
originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Try again.
That accident happened because a human being modified a system to operate without the safety controls in place. If he had not modified the system to operate without a human hand on the wheel, he would have felt the warning system engage (which it did), and could have possibly avoided the accident.
But, you were well aware of that, and well aware of the NTSB's findings, to which they only found fault with Tesla allowing a car to operate after it had been modified by a non-Tesla person.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Try again.
That accident happened because a human being modified a system to operate without the safety controls in place. If he had not modified the system to operate without a human hand on the wheel, he would have felt the warning system engage (which it did), and could have possibly avoided the accident.
But, you were well aware of that, and well aware of the NTSB's findings, to which they only found fault with Tesla allowing a car to operate after it had been modified by a non-Tesla person.
Fine. But we are talking about the ultimate goal of the computer cars being the driver and the occupants just being a passenger. Such as an autonomous taxi or shuttle bus...and then eventually all cars. The goal is for humans not to be involved in the driving process.
That will someday happen, but as you point out, the current system needs a human behind the wheel as a failsafe. Therefore the current technology is by no means ready to be put in place anytime soon that will take humans out of the driving equation.
Don't get me wrong -- I think the technology someday will be there. Just not soon. There are just too many variables that humans deal with every day that a computer may not be able to deal with just yet.
Sure -- even without being able to deal with every one of those variables, if every car on the road was autonomous and talked to each other, then there would be fewer fatalities, even with passive occupants. However, even if that were so, there would be different kinds of fatalities that would probably have been preventable.
originally posted by: luthier
The goal would be a reduction in fatalities right?
originally posted by: JAGStorm
My neighbor was driving in our small neighborhood she was going around a turn, which happened to be covered in fresh ice, her minivan slid and ended up stuck in her front yard. I saw this and avoided the curve as I could tell by the snow marks what had happened.
How on earth will driverless cars make those kinds of decisions? Will there just be a big o'l pile of cars in her front yard?
There are so many nuances to driving in our area, deer jutting out at you, farm animals, very slippery hills, logs falling on roads.
I just can't see driverless cars in these areas, maybe highway, but these backroads seem to need instant human decision making.
originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti I expect autonomous driving will be rolled out as technology improves. The first place will be the open highway and cities. I'm sure there will be many mishaps and a lot of learning from experience.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: JAGStorm
The computer will have a feel for what the car is doing beyond a human. It will feel tires slipping etc and use a velocity to match what it feels.
The question will be who does it kill. The driver or three pedestrians.
originally posted by: underwerks
Maybe the snow mode in driverless cars will be a manual mode?
originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: peck420
Why would that not be the math?
How many are on the road?
I've haven't crashed a car in 26 years, you want to put them up against my record, and put your money where your mouth is?
I will always side with human control of travel.
Maybe I will divert the world from this creepy Taco Bell Demolition Man world they all seek so much?
originally posted by: JAGStorm
My neighbor was driving in our small neighborhood she was going around a turn, which happened to be covered in fresh ice, her minivan slid and ended up stuck in her front yard. I saw this and avoided the curve as I could tell by the snow marks what had happened.
How on earth will driverless cars make those kinds of decisions? Will there just be a big o'l pile of cars in her front yard?
There are so many nuances to driving in our area, deer jutting out at you, farm animals, very slippery hills, logs falling on roads.
I just can't see driverless cars in these areas, maybe highway, but these backroads seem to need instant human decision making.
Really there's only one way. the first sign of ice and they shut the whole system down. Everyone and everything.
How do you like it so far? .....
originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: JAGStorm
Can driverless cars see blocks of wood on the road, can they see potholes and washaways? Do they brake when a dog or cat or child runs out onto the road?
Do they detect something bad happening up ahead such as a car or truck turning sideways and starting to roll over towards the car?
Can they sense and brake or take other evasiave action when something happens up ahead or when someone throws something at it from a bridge or whatever?
Can they be made to stop when someone in the car is absolutely busting to go to the toilet on the side of road or wants to stop so they can spew their heart out because they have motion sickness?