Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Self-driving cars may result in pedestrians' lives being easier and safer... One day we'll all think back to those crazy days when we let people drive cars. Imagine that   ( money.cnn.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Walking, autonomous vehicles, self-driving cars, streets, City Transportation Officials, instinctive human act, city streets, self-driving vehicles  
•       •       •

751 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Nov 2017 at 7:58 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-11-05 05:53:02 PM  
pics.me.meView Full Size
 
2017-11-05 05:54:27 PM  
Rush - Red Barchetta
Youtube FAvQSkK8Z8U
 
2017-11-05 05:55:15 PM  
Can't happen soon enough.

I know, I know.... you're all great drivers and the computer might not know what to do in some edge case.

But humans are pretty shiatty drivers and I don't need edge cases to prove it.
 
2017-11-05 07:19:59 PM  
Until some farking genius writes a virus to make cars go after pedestrians.
 
2017-11-05 07:59:26 PM  

SoupGuru: Can't happen soon enough.

I know, I know.... you're all great drivers and the computer might not know what to do in some edge case.

But humans are pretty shiatty drivers and I don't need edge cases to prove it.


That's why I quit driving.  No trust.
 
2017-11-05 08:04:13 PM  
Driving is one of those relative risk calculations humans are so bad at. Hurtling down a narrow, often unbounded strip of asphalt almost but not entirely at another person hurtling your way... Times infinity every day. We normalize it and worry about terrorists and spiders. Because we are dumb.
 
2017-11-05 08:11:23 PM  
should make jaywalking in heavy traffic a lot easier
 
2017-11-05 08:13:50 PM  

SoupGuru: Can't happen soon enough.

I know, I know.... you're all great drivers and the computer might not know what to do in some edge case.

But humans are pretty shiatty drivers and I don't need edge cases to prove it.


Thing is, they're getting worse. Road toll going up both US, and in NZ, where I live.

Likely due to distracted driving, with people sure that they can take their eyes off the road "just for a few secs" to answer that really urgent text. And you can't convince them that it's dangerous. Self-drive cars are only way out.
 
2017-11-05 08:15:01 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

They already imagined it.
 
2017-11-05 08:20:38 PM  

mjjt: SoupGuru: Can't happen soon enough.

I know, I know.... you're all great drivers and the computer might not know what to do in some edge case.

But humans are pretty shiatty drivers and I don't need edge cases to prove it.

Thing is, they're getting worse. Road toll going up both US, and in NZ, where I live.

Likely due to distracted driving, with people sure that they can take their eyes off the road "just for a few secs" to answer that really urgent text. And you can't convince them that it's dangerous. Self-drive cars are only way out.


Yep, people won't put away their devices.  We're a more distracted society, and it shows.  Computers are REALLY good at not getting distracted.  Self-driving tech is still a little ways from being practical in terms of cost, and reliable enough that people really CAN tune out.  But it's getting there, and it'll make stuff work a lot better.
 
2017-11-05 08:31:31 PM  

Merltech: Until some farking genius writes a virus to make cars go after pedestrians.


img.fark.netView Full Size


Picking up what you're throwing down.
 
2017-11-05 08:32:14 PM  
Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.
 
2017-11-05 08:43:35 PM  

aerojockey: Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.


This, and, travelling on things that aren't roads. It's going to be really hard to get society to stop driving because there are a lot of us who don't drive 100% on roads, and if it's not 100% usage, it's going to take a lot longer to flip the switch.
 
2017-11-05 08:47:34 PM  
Sitting in the truck, eating a snack from Trader Joe's, looking straight ahead as two drivers back out at almost the same time from chevroned spaces. Now I know how a certain shape of bumper marring happens.
 
2017-11-05 09:04:56 PM  

you need help: aerojockey: Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.

This, and, travelling on things that aren't roads. It's going to be really hard to get society to stop driving because there are a lot of us who don't drive 100% on roads, and if it's not 100% usage, it's going to take a lot longer to flip the switch.


I don't expect driving off-road to be a significant issue.  It might be the case that cars won't automatically drive somewhere you tell them to go, but I do expect cars to have interactive modes, where you can point or look at where you want to go and the car will drive itself there, that can handle many or most off-road applications.  And it would still have the advanced sensors and awareness for added safety.
 
2017-11-05 09:07:00 PM  
The technology isn't ready yet. Won't be ready until someone has Wright Brother's style innovation. And even then, it'll be 10 years of R&D before it reaches production in quantity.

And the fact that large corporations are hiring thousands of employees to tackle problems is not a sign of progress. It is a sign of desperation.
 
2017-11-05 09:17:00 PM  
I've been legally blind since birth, so a self-driving car would be great option for me, in theory. Whether they'll be a viable and affordable option within my lifetime remains to be seen.
 
2017-11-05 09:20:29 PM  

Merltech: Until some farking genius writes a virus to make cars go after pedestrians.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-05 09:28:08 PM  

aerojockey: you need help: aerojockey: Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.

This, and, travelling on things that aren't roads. It's going to be really hard to get society to stop driving because there are a lot of us who don't drive 100% on roads, and if it's not 100% usage, it's going to take a lot longer to flip the switch.

I don't expect driving off-road to be a significant issue.  It might be the case that cars won't automatically drive somewhere you tell them to go, but I do expect cars to have interactive modes, where you can point or look at where you want to go and the car will drive itself there, that can handle many or most off-road applications.  And it would still have the advanced sensors and awareness for added safety.


I expect it to be a large issue. For true adoption, they have to account for every driving scenario or people are going to manual override whenever they feel like it, which starts a bad cycle. And what about extensions of the vehicle, like trailers. Every trailer will need sensors and large external vehicle modifications will need to be able to be programmed in. I know, I'm only pointing out the problems with it; I'm not excited about it.
 
2017-11-05 09:35:37 PM  
"Self driving cars will move at 20mph" is the takeaway

I'm glad we're starting to be realistic about the risks involved with driverless cars. The tech is nowhere near safe enough.
 
2017-11-05 09:40:28 PM  
d2rormqr1qwzpz.cloudfront.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-05 09:50:26 PM  
Sure, self driving cars are much safer than human driven cars when they're limited to 20mph and stick to city streets. Brilliant.
 
2017-11-05 09:55:03 PM  

Exluddite: [Youtube FAvQSkK8Z8U image 480x360][Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/FAvQSkK8​Z8U]


<sigh>... 2 fails...
1) Geddy pronounces Barchetta wrong... total fail... his uncle would be disappointed.
2) The original story is about an MGB...  https://www.scribd.com/doc/33762958/A​-​Nice-Morning-Drive
 
2017-11-05 10:20:44 PM  

SoupGuru: Can't happen soon enough.
I know, I know.... you're all great drivers and the computer might not know what to do in some edge case.

But humans are pretty shiatty drivers and I don't need edge cases to prove it.


I AM a great driver, 18 years, 230k miles, no at fault accidents.

But I am still in the "let the farking computer drive" camp.

// hopefully sometime before I retire

// imagine public vehicles and houses sans garages (I would turn my 3 car garage into a giant game/media room)
 
2017-11-05 10:22:48 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: The technology isn't ready yet. Won't be ready until someone has Wright Brother's style innovation. And even then, it'll be 10 years of R&D before it reaches production in quantity.

And the fact that large corporations are hiring thousands of employees to tackle problems is not a sign of progress. It is a sign of desperation.


Actually wrong on both counts. The tech has already been invented. Needs incremental improvement, not any radical new invention. faster computers, cheaper lidars, more maps. And you'll see them on the freeways next year, not 10 years.
 
2017-11-05 10:34:17 PM  

aerojockey: Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.


A scenario that I think is likely is that cities eliminate all parking on the street (the car that brought you to the city is off on another trip, not uselessly cluttering up the streets) Then you put up mesh fences along the sidewalk to completely separate vehicle and foot traffic. Cross at intersections controlled by gates.

That allows traffic to flow at any speed, to be interweaved through intersections by computer control. Faster travel on more lanes means easier to organise gaps for pedestrians to cross, minimising traffic interruptions
 
2017-11-05 10:56:30 PM  

SoupGuru: Can't happen soon enough.

I know, I know.... you're all great drivers and the computer might not know what to do in some edge case.

But humans are pretty shiatty drivers and I don't need edge cases to prove it.


I like all the trolley problems concerned individuals keep throwing at self driving cars. As though human drivers often have to face the queston of whether to swerve instantly to crash into a school bus full of nuns or run over stephen hawking in a crosswalk.
 
2017-11-05 10:58:04 PM  
Just today someone almost hit me while I was crossing the street because they were looking left to see if they could make a right turn on a red light and drifted into the crosswalk without looking.

Please bring on the robot drivers.
 
2017-11-05 11:00:01 PM  

mjjt: aerojockey: Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.

A scenario that I think is likely is that cities eliminate all parking on the street (the car that brought you to the city is off on another trip, not uselessly cluttering up the streets) Then you put up mesh fences along the sidewalk to completely separate vehicle and foot traffic. Cross at intersections controlled by gates.

That allows traffic to flow at any speed, to be interweaved through intersections by computer control. Faster travel on more lanes means easier to organise gaps for pedestrians to cross, minimising traffic interruptions


NYC has done this in certain tourist heavy places because tourists were running across the middle of streets.
 
2017-11-05 11:03:39 PM  

mjjt: Actually wrong on both counts. The tech has already been invented. Needs incremental improvement, not any radical new invention. faster computers, cheaper lidars, more maps. And you'll see them on the freeways next year, not 10 years.


"Problem's solved already - they just have to add more computer!"

- Surefire sign you're dealing with a non-expert
 
2017-11-05 11:04:48 PM  

you need help: aerojockey: Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.

This, and, travelling on things that aren't roads. It's going to be really hard to get society to stop driving because there are a lot of us who don't drive 100% on roads, and if it's not 100% usage, it's going to take a lot longer to flip the switch.


Lot's of us? Puh-lease. I live in Alabama and even there you have to go way the hell out there to find an unpaved road.

And so long as the road is graded it is still technically a road.
 
2017-11-05 11:10:25 PM  

spamdog: mjjt: Actually wrong on both counts. The tech has already been invented. Needs incremental improvement, not any radical new invention. faster computers, cheaper lidars, more maps. And you'll see them on the freeways next year, not 10 years.

"Problem's solved already - they just have to add more computer!"

- Surefire sign you're dealing with a non-expert


LOL You sound tired .... or ignorant
 
2017-11-06 12:05:28 AM  

mjjt: spamdog: mjjt: Actually wrong on both counts. The tech has already been invented. Needs incremental improvement, not any radical new invention. faster computers, cheaper lidars, more maps. And you'll see them on the freeways next year, not 10 years.

"Problem's solved already - they just have to add more computer!"

- Surefire sign you're dealing with a non-expert

LOL You sound tired .... or ignorant


Maybe they don't have this tech in Russia.
 
2017-11-06 12:08:04 AM  
mini bar, uber hookups and netflix on OLED all on your evening commute home in your self driving taxi service. What's not to love people?
 
2017-11-06 12:09:44 AM  

lordargent: I AM a great driver... no at fault accidents


Interesting caveat...
 
2017-11-06 12:34:03 AM  

thornhill: you need help: aerojockey: Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.

This, and, travelling on things that aren't roads. It's going to be really hard to get society to stop driving because there are a lot of us who don't drive 100% on roads, and if it's not 100% usage, it's going to take a lot longer to flip the switch.

Lot's of us? Puh-lease. I live in Alabama and even there you have to go way the hell out there to find an unpaved road.

And so long as the road is graded it is still technically a road.


How does "don't drive 100% on roads" turn into "unpaved road"? Puh-lease re-think your statement so that it makes sense.
 
2017-11-06 12:37:17 AM  

bubba_2ba: lordargent: I AM a great driver... no at fault accidents

Interesting caveat...


Ive been hit two times from people coming over into my lane. And I've been rear ended once when I was stopped a red light.

Its a constant struggle to avoid bad or oblivious drivers, and every once in a while, despite my best efforts, someone manages to connect.

// I've also been hit by all sorts of road debris, including a flying hubcap.

// I also just realized that self driving cars wouldn't need windows and windshields.
 
2017-11-06 01:21:28 AM  

you need help: aerojockey: you need help: aerojockey: Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.

This, and, travelling on things that aren't roads. It's going to be really hard to get society to stop driving because there are a lot of us who don't drive 100% on roads, and if it's not 100% usage, it's going to take a lot longer to flip the switch.

I don't expect driving off-road to be a significant issue.  It might be the case that cars won't automatically drive somewhere you tell them to go, but I do expect cars to have interactive modes, where you can point or look at where you want to go and the car will drive itself there, that can handle many or most off-road applications.  And it would still have the advanced sensors and awareness for added safety.

I expect it to be a large issue. For true adoption, they have to account for every driving scenario or people are going to manual override whenever they feel like it, which starts a bad cycle. And what about extensions of the vehicle, like trailers. Every trailer will need sensors and large external vehicle modifications will need to be able to be programmed in. I know, I'm only pointing out the problems with it; I'm not excited about it.


You either didn't read what I wrote or are drawing a distinction I can't discern.  So let's step back a little.

The idea that in the nearish future you'll get into your car, speak an address, and then sit down and sleep or read your Kindle until the car alerts you that you're at your destination, then you get out, is the ideal scenario, but no one thinks that every single drive you take is going to be like that.  Of course these cars are going to have modes that are more interactive than just "Drive me to work, car", and there's going to be varying levels of interaction as well.  You care going to need this off-road and on, and it doesn't mean the car is not self-driving.

A very light level of increased interaction might be shouting adjustments like, "Slow down car".  For more interaction you might give out specific instructions: "Back up a little, car", or, "Turn right here, car".  For even more interactivity you might have sensors that can detect where you're looking or pointing.  For the highest level of interactivity you might even have a "steering wheel" and "brakes".  This isn't manual control though, any more than those cars that let you control gears without a clutch are manual transmissions.  The car is still in full control.  If you try to back up, not noticing that there's a small child behind the car, it'll stop no matter what you do.  This is the important point: even though you have a steering wheel, the car has full authority and is thus still self-driving.  The safefy benefits you get from a self-driving car don't go away just because you give the driver something that looks like a steering wheel so that they can communicate their intent to the car.

The fact that you might sometimes need a steering wheel is a non-issue when it comes to adoption.

Now, if your point is that you really do need to give the human driver full authority (so a real steering column and brakes connected directly to the pedal) in all these off-road situations, then I completely and totally disagree with you.  I can think of only a few contrived cases where you'd need that (like a race where computer control is illegal).  Worst case scenerio is you might need a way to override safety checks once in awhile to get the car/truck to do something it thinks is dangerous.  And very few people will ever need to push their vehicles that far.  For most people the only off-roading they ever do is to pull onto the grass at a picnic or park in an unpaved lot.
 
2017-11-06 08:23:07 AM  
"Dude that's a Ford Electro, fark it just tailgate it. It'll pull right and outta the way in 4 seconds."

"Oh hell yeah that's a Chevy Muon, flash your lights to the tune of Ironman and it'll move over to the left at 95. We can draft it from there."

The possibilities to fark with empty self driving cars is endless.
 
2017-11-06 08:48:33 AM  
the only way you ever see me in a self driving car with the car driving is when  they make the cars so that there is no way to override the computer and drive it myself.  If the car has that ability or can be rewired to have it then that what I am going do.

If your disabled in a way that you can't drive then sure a self driving car is great.  If you are not then you are a fool for trusting one.

there is just to many things that i won't trust a computer to do.

I give a good example for where I live.  I see pickup trucks all the time with loads of wood or other things in the back end tied down.  There are times that I can tell the person who did the tying didn't have a clue what they where doing.  I have lost count of the times I have had to slam on my breaks or swerve to avoid something following.  So now I give my self more room then if I was behind a non loaded truck or car.  A self driving car is going be programed to stay x feet behind the car in front of it.  That distance may not be what I consider a safe distances.  If I can't tell the computer to increase that distance to what I consider safe then I better have a override or that car is not a safe care to be in.

That is just one example.  There are plenty more.  Now these things might happen less then 5% of the time(depending on where you live) but they happen.  I will never trust a computer controlled device that I am going trust my life on unless there is a way for me or the drive to override the program for different things.  If the system can't be overriding I never trust them.
 
2017-11-06 08:57:55 AM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: should make jaywalking in heavy traffic a lot easier


That will work for you maybe 10 times, maybe 100, but the first time it doesn't you won't be trying it again.
 
2017-11-06 09:29:43 AM  
wait, last week, we were going to fence the sidewalks off., so AV's wouldn't be bothered by pedestrians.  Also, speed limits would be a thing of the past.  Remember, electric cars are great because they leave ICE's in the dust at the drag slip.  We'll be zipping around at unheard of speeds.

Your chance of dying from any of 10 cancers each is higher than dying in a car accident.  Banning alcohol would save more lives, but we're not going to limit people freedom to drink, are we?   A nation that bans driving just might want to save move lives.  What will some blogger pull out his ass next week?
 
2017-11-06 10:07:12 AM  

aerojockey: you need help: aerojockey: you need help: aerojockey: 

I expect it to be a large issue. For true adoption, they have to account for every driving scenario or people are going to manual override whenever they feel like it, which starts a bad cycle. And what about extensions of the vehicle, like trailers. Every trailer will need sensors and large external vehicle modifications will need to be able to be programmed in. I know, I'm only pointing out the problems with it; I'm not excited about it.

You either didn't read what I wrote or are drawing a distinction I can't discern.  So let's step back a little.

The idea that in the nearish future you'll get into your car, speak an address, and then sit down and sleep or read your Kindle until the car alerts you that you're at your destination, then you get out, is the ideal scenario, but no one thinks that every single drive you take is going to be like that.  Of co ...


I'm just pointing out that it's going to take a lot of time to account for all of the things that factor in, which means manual override needs to remain, which means that people will override at every chance. A separate example is something that I've seen from a software perspective from my work, that when releasing an otherwise functionally equal but perceived inferior product, to get 100% adoption, you have to shut off the other program. So, your statement of it "having a steering wheel being a non-issue" is what I disagree with. Look at the comment just above from jumac to see an example of the manual-override mentality, that I see a lot of people having, especially people who drive off of roads.
 
2017-11-06 11:11:52 AM  

you need help: aerojockey: you need help: aerojockey: you need help: aerojockey: 

I expect it to be a large issue. For true adoption, they have to account for every driving scenario or people are going to manual override whenever they feel like it, which starts a bad cycle. And what about extensions of the vehicle, like trailers. Every trailer will need sensors and large external vehicle modifications will need to be able to be programmed in. I know, I'm only pointing out the problems with it; I'm not excited about it.

You either didn't read what I wrote or are drawing a distinction I can't discern.  So let's step back a little.

The idea that in the nearish future you'll get into your car, speak an address, and then sit down and sleep or read your Kindle until the car alerts you that you're at your destination, then you get out, is the ideal scenario, but no one thinks that every single drive you take is going to be like that.  Of co ...

I'm just pointing out that it's going to take a lot of time to account for all of the things that factor in, which means manual override needs to remain, which means that people will override at every chance. A separate example is something that I've seen from a software perspective from my work, that when releasing an otherwise functionally equal but perceived inferior product, to get 100% adoption, you have to shut off the other program. So, your statement of it "having a steering wheel being a non-issue" is what I disagree with. Look at the comment just above from jumac to see an example of the manual-override mentality, that I see a lot of people having, especially people who drive off of roads.


When i was saying manual-override I mean it in a way that there need to be a way to override the computer program if you feel its not safe.  I would have no issue letting the car drive it self if something comes up that  the computer is programed to do x but I want it to do y and can tell the computer to do y instead.

The example I used above is one.  I should be able to tell the computer to increase the distance between me and and the car/truck/etc ahead of me if i feel the distance is to close.  Another one is what if the computer has to chose between hitting a person in the road and not injuiring the people in the car or say running into a dich or tree and not hitting the person in the road. I can say now most people are going want the computer program to car bout them in the car then some random person in the road.  But if i got a chose between hitting a kid and be safe myself or hitting a tree saving the kid but running risk of getting hurt myself. If I tell the computer to avoid the kid at all cost it better.

If I can't override the program then its not safe to drive in my thinking.

As for taking over and driving the car myself.  They will never get rid of that.  They can't as there has to be a way to drive the car if the computer stops working.  We all know software never runs perfect 100% of the time so unless you want to risk having people stranded in the middle of the road or in the middle of nowhere you need  to have someway for the car to be driving without the computer.
 
2017-11-06 12:37:27 PM  
If only I were rich enough to afford a renault turn table garage that parks the car on the roof.
 
2017-11-06 01:03:41 PM  
The technology isn't the problem, it WILL evolve to the point where it is viable.  The issues that really need to be sorted out are the legal ones.  Who is liable in the event of an accident? The manufacturer? The programmer? The "driver"?

I'm mostly cool with self driving cars, and I'd love to nap or read on my commute. But if you insist that the "driver" is responsible for every action of the vehicle, then there's no farking way I'm letting it drive. If I'm going to be held responsible, and potentially spend the rest of my life in prison, or abject poverty for the actions of a vehicle... I'm going to be the one making that choice, for good or ill.
 
2017-11-06 01:17:17 PM  

jumac: you need help: aerojockey: you need help: aerojockey: you need help: aerojockey: 

I'm just pointing out that it's going to take a lot of time to account for all of the things that factor in, which means manual override needs to remain, which means that people will override at every chance. A separate example is something that I've seen from a software perspective from my work, that when releasing an otherwise functionally equal but perceived inferior product, to get 100% adoption, you have to shut off the other program. So, your statement of it "having a steering wheel being a non-issue" is what I disagree with. Look at the comment just above from jumac to see an example of the manual-override mentality, that I see a lot of people having, especially people who drive off of roads.

When i was saying manual-override I mean it in a way that there need to be a way to override the computer program if you feel its not safe.  I would have no issue letting the car drive it self if something comes up that  the computer is programed to do x but I want it to do y and can tell the computer to do y instead.

The example I ...


And statements like this in aero's post: "The car is still in full control.  If you try to back up, not noticing that there's a small child behind the car, it'll stop no matter what you do.  This is the important point: even though you have a steering wheel, the car has full authority and is thus still self-driving." directly affect statements like yours: "If I can't override the program then its not safe to drive in my thinking." And the end result of that, from my experience with software releases, indicates that it will be an all or nothing kind of ordeal, and it's going to take a fark of a long time to get to the all.
 
2017-11-06 02:34:09 PM  

you need help: aerojockey: you need help: aerojockey: Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.

This, and, travelling on things that aren't roads. It's going to be really hard to get society to stop driving because there are a lot of us who don't drive 100% on roads, and if it's not 100% usage, it's going to take a lot longer to flip the switch.

I don't expect driving off-road to be a significant issue.  It might be the case that cars won't automatically drive somewhere you tell them to go, but I do expect cars to have interactive modes, where you can point or look at where you want to go and the car will drive itself there, that can handle many or most off-road applications.  And it would still have the advanced sensors and awareness for added safety.

I expect it to be a large issue. For true adoption, they have to account for every driving scenario or people are going to manual override whenever they feel like it, which starts a bad cycle. And what about extensions of the vehicle, like trailers. Every trailer will need sensors and large external vehicle modifications will need to be able to be programmed in. I know, I'm only pointing out the problems with it; I'm not excited about it.


I would be interested in seeing how autonomous vehicles perform backing a trailer down boat ramp.
 
2017-11-06 02:35:39 PM  

lordargent: SoupGuru: Can't happen soon enough.
I know, I know.... you're all great drivers and the computer might not know what to do in some edge case.

But humans are pretty shiatty drivers and I don't need edge cases to prove it.

I AM a great driver, 18 years, 230k miles, no at fault accidents.

But I am still in the "let the farking computer drive" camp.

// hopefully sometime before I retire

// imagine public vehicles and houses sans garages (I would turn my 3 car garage into a giant game/media room)


Public vehicles?  Have you met the Public?
 
2017-11-06 02:36:23 PM  

mjjt: aerojockey: Bah. If I know pedestrians, they'll just mosey out into busy high-speed intersections expecting the self-driving cars to slam on the brakes for them.

Seriously this is what I believe is the biggest threat to widespread adoption of self-driving cars.  Either the cars will be so tentative that they never get anywhere, or they'll occasionally plow into stupid-ass pedestrians and get sued into the dark ages.

A scenario that I think is likely is that cities eliminate all parking on the street (the car that brought you to the city is off on another trip, not uselessly cluttering up the streets) Then you put up mesh fences along the sidewalk to completely separate vehicle and foot traffic. Cross at intersections controlled by gates.

That allows traffic to flow at any speed, to be interweaved through intersections by computer control. Faster travel on more lanes means easier to organise gaps for pedestrians to cross, minimising traffic interruptions


So, kinda like prison?
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report