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.

 

Driverless cars and snow

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
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.




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

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.


edit on 15/12/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

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.



Correct and none are sold as such.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

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.


Sounds like your a a technophobe.



The fact is Americans are piss pore drivers. Nobody has talked about changing that.

In your miracle world mind movie they will be trained, it's not the reality. Some people have slow twitch muscles, some are dumb, other distracted or on pills, drugs, and alcohol.

Yes if you could wag a magic wand you could fix that. As far as I know you don't have one.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

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.



edit on 15/12/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

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.




The goal would be a reduction in fatalities right?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
The goal would be a reduction in fatalities right?

One of the goals. It's not a top priority, because it isn't a top priority now. Number one goal would be faster and more efficient highways. Get all the cars linked up, and they can safely drive 100 mph six inches apart.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

My car does a lot of things. Tells me when I'm going out off the road. I can set the cruise to 3 different lengths between vehicles. It slows down itself and speeds up itself. it will apply brakes when needed. When I have that feature off a great big brake message comes on if I am to close to a vehicle. It has a lot of bells and whistles. I'm still not sure of what all the car can do. I'm not going to see what happens in the snow and ice though, I need to be in control there. To many things can happen. To many variables.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   

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.



And unfortunately your fearless leaders could care less about what you and I think and are currently unleashing these unguided missiles on the public. Makes me angry because we all know (a) millions in "contributions" to politicians are being made; and (b) we all know these cars are unsafe.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   

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.


Too late man, they've already unleashed them in cities in California.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

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.


Depends who’s driving and who’s the pedestrian. If I was the “driver” then the pedestrians die of course. However if I was one of the pedestrians then of course the “driver” should be killed. Too easy!



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Maybe the snow mode in driverless cars will be a manual mode?



Guaranteed a driver with zero skills then.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

They won't, and they are already unlikely to make good decisions in other circumstances, such as who lives or dies, if a choice is to be made. Driverless cars are simply not a good idea.

Not to mention the hacking potential.....



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   

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?


This bears repeating, and it's the biggest point that those all gung-ho about the etch want to ignore.

Poor programing aside, lack of instinct aside, hacking concerns aside, let's all talk about the lack of freedom! Whining about drunk drivers, claiming that "all Americans" are "bad drivers", etc., doesn't change the fact at this is about a lack of freedom, a lack of any personal control.

Note, please, that those in favor of these cars have stated that the cars will be able to communicate with one another. If you think your cell phone spies n you, try having your car do so as well! But, hey, someone will feel safer, even though they aren't, so let's all just flush freedom down the drain, right?



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   

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? .....




posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   
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?





edit on 16-12-2017 by Azureblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There has been a taste of this with car companies using the remote switch to stop cars when the owner has failed to pay. Just imagine with these cars. You better pay your car note!



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   

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?


So you have on the spot decision making that a meat driver would make, right or wrong, using facts *and* instinct.

Then you take that decision making process and (a) remove the immediacy and urgency; (b) remove the instinct part of the process; (c) put the decision in the hands of someone not only distant from the location in space but also time; (d) remove the self-perservation aspect that often accompanies the decision making process; and hope for the best.

Not a fan.
edit on 16-12-2017 by LanceCorvette because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join