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.

(The Verge)   GM makes Johnny Cab a reality   ( theverge.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Automobile, GM, autonomous test cars, self-driving Chevy Bolts, autonomous Chevy Bolts, main rival Ford, fully driverless minivans, San Francisco  
•       •       •

1732 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Nov 2017 at 5:38 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2017-11-30 04:01:35 PM  
How did I get in this taxi?
 
2017-11-30 04:10:30 PM  
Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.
 
2017-11-30 04:17:03 PM  

derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.


That or regulation.  A few panicky Senators could kill autonomous vehicles very efficiently.  The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.
 
2017-11-30 05:27:27 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

That or regulation.  A few panicky Senators could kill autonomous vehicles very efficiently.  The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.


There are nearly a trillion reasons why legislators are strongly in favour of AVs (cost of road accidents $871 billion 2013, cost of congestion $124 billion)

Road accidents are overwhelmingly due to driver fault - alcohol, speeding, red light running, fatigue, distracted driving and use of cell phones (detailed figures here)

AVs are the only practical way to make an immediate dent in those figures.

Every dollar saved from road accident costs is a dollar that can be spent on their pet projects or tax cuts.

So legislators are strongly motivated to smooth the way rather than obstruct progress,
 
2017-11-30 05:41:35 PM  

mjjt: HMS_Blinkin: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

That or regulation.  A few panicky Senators could kill autonomous vehicles very efficiently.  The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.

There are nearly a trillion reasons why legislators are strongly in favour of AVs (cost of road accidents $871 billion 2013, cost of congestion $124 billion)

Road accidents are overwhelmingly due to driver fault - alcohol, speeding, red light running, fatigue, distracted driving and use of cell phones (detailed figures here)

AVs are the only practical way to make an immediate dent in those figures.

Every dollar saved from road accident costs is a dollar that can be spent on their pet projects or tax cuts.

So legislators are strongly motivated to smooth the way rather than obstruct progress,


I'm still waiting for the demo in New York when the snow is falling on sleet covered streets at night when the LED stoplights get frosted over and the other car doesn't stop either
 
2017-11-30 05:43:13 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

That or regulation.  A few panicky Senators could kill autonomous vehicles very efficiently.  The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.


If ours doesn't. . .others will.

If the US bans them, and autonomous vehicles become common in other countries, that will just increase pressure from lobbying groups (like shipping companies that would LOVE to replace organic truck drivers with robots) to let the US do what other countries do.

They could buy time. . .but they'd find they can't kill the technology, because the US isn't the whole world.
 
2017-11-30 05:44:04 PM  
What about hookers with three boobs?
 
2017-11-30 05:48:48 PM  

The_Sponge: What about hookers with three boobs?


San Francisco.   Not really a place where they eat GMOs.   Of course, maybe if the GMO eats you
 
2017-11-30 05:49:02 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

Oh, wait, Johnny Cab. My mistake.
 
2017-11-30 05:50:47 PM  
So, the flying cars must be out by 2018.
Why, that is next year!
 
2017-11-30 05:51:12 PM  
FTFA: GM is unique in its position that it will have a scalable commercial product in just two years.

GM can barely build cars. This is a punchline masquerading as a conclusion.
 
2017-11-30 05:51:52 PM  

derpes_simplex: I'm still waiting for the demo in New York when the snow is falling on sleet covered streets at night when the LED stoplights get frosted over and the other car doesn't stop either


Yeah me too. It's going to really boost confidence in the technology!
 
2017-11-30 05:57:54 PM  

spamdog: derpes_simplex: I'm still waiting for the demo in New York when the snow is falling on sleet covered streets at night when the LED stoplights get frosted over and the other car doesn't stop either

Yeah me too. It's going to really boost confidence in the technology!


There will be testing of an AV in Ottawa this winter ... if it can survive that ...
 
2017-11-30 06:09:04 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

That or regulation.  A few panicky Senators could kill autonomous vehicles very efficiently.  The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.


The US isn't the only market. Less litigious societies will implement these effectively
 
2017-11-30 06:09:05 PM  
Remember when the cable companies pushed out broadband so they could sell you content on demand, and when everyone went to Netflix instead they got the FCC to drop net neutrality? I just have an eerie sort of foresight something similar is going to happen in transport. They're going to have marketing tie-ins to corporate bars and restaurants that make it more expensive to be driven to the independent that doesn't pay for the same premium, but when they discover people are using the discounted trip and walking a block to they were really going, they'll have to find legislation banning walking places.
 
2017-11-30 06:14:14 PM  
Venetian Snares - Herbie Goes Ballistic
Youtube NajDi5x2Bmk
 
2017-11-30 06:58:14 PM  
Speaking as someone who anxiously awaits the self-driving vehicle... a cab doesn't work as simply as a personal vehicle does.... there are a few functions that a cab driver performs that a self-driving cab simply can't -- such as "making someone get out at their stop", "only allowing the correct number of riders to enter the cab", "not performing [some_action_x] in the cab", and/or "not bringing [some_thing_y] into the cab."  Or "don't wipe your poo on the seat belt" :-| eww

/not to mention elderly people or children who aren't strong enough to heft their own luggage
//will be interesting to see how those issues are tackled
 
2017-11-30 06:59:39 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

That or regulation.  A few panicky Senators could kill autonomous vehicles very efficiently.  The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.


Came here to make this point. I don't doubt that self driving cars can and eventually will be safer than human drivers, but statistically there are going to be some deaths before we get to that point. There will probably be some highly publicized cases where people died because the car made a mistake.

The public reaction to those incidents will determine the trajectory of self-driving vehicles for the next few decades.
 
2017-11-30 07:05:30 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.


mjjt: So legislators are strongly motivated to smooth the way rather than obstruct progress,


Government/Legislators make a metric assload of money/graft off of ticket revenue. Computers follow the speed limit, park where they're supposed to, and record their surroundings; none of those are conducive to harvesting revenue.
 
2017-11-30 07:10:38 PM  

wildcardjack: Remember when the cable companies pushed out broadband so they could sell you content on demand, and when everyone went to Netflix instead they got the FCC to drop net neutrality? I just have an eerie sort of foresight something similar is going to happen in transport. They're going to have marketing tie-ins to corporate bars and restaurants that make it more expensive to be driven to the independent that doesn't pay for the same premium, but when they discover people are using the discounted trip and walking a block to they were really going, they'll have to find legislation banning walking places.


thatescalatedquickly.jpg
 
2017-11-30 07:31:33 PM  
"Please state the destination of the passenger in question."
 
2017-11-30 07:40:49 PM  

LoneVVolf: HMS_Blinkin: The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.

mjjt: So legislators are strongly motivated to smooth the way rather than obstruct progress,

Government/Legislators make a metric assload of money/graft off of ticket revenue. Computers follow the speed limit, park where they're supposed to, and record their surroundings; none of those are conducive to harvesting revenue.


They will make up for any lost revenue by charging for access to freeways and busy roads. Can anticipate that all cars using these roads will have to have a telemetry box relaying their position and speed, bc this is probably only way to handle the transition period when there is a mix of old cars and AVs. That box will be used to ration access (by charging higher fee at peak time) and to discourage old cars, which will pay a higher fee bc they are using the freeway longer (travelling a lot slower than the AV commuters)
 
2017-11-30 08:01:21 PM  

LoneVVolf: HMS_Blinkin: The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.

mjjt: So legislators are strongly motivated to smooth the way rather than obstruct progress,

Government/Legislators make a metric assload of money/graft off of ticket revenue. Computers follow the speed limit, park where they're supposed to, and record their surroundings; none of those are conducive to harvesting revenue.


Oh don't worry, I'm sure a host of road taxes and tolls will more than replace that lost  revenue....
 
2017-11-30 08:03:45 PM  
Will they explode if I get out, refuse to pay, and say "sue me dickhead?"
 
2017-11-30 08:12:21 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


Please state the nature of the transit emergency.
 
kab
2017-11-30 08:15:34 PM  
Thats nice.  Keep it out if the left lanes please.
 
2017-11-30 08:16:06 PM  

Im_Gumby: How did I get in this taxi?


The door opened, you got in!

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-30 08:25:21 PM  
3:45 AM: Mr. Hyde stored 3 125 pound carbon based objects in the trunk.
4:37 AM: Mr. Hyde removed the 3 125 pound carbon based objects out the trunk at stop 105.3 adjacent to the Chicago River
 
2017-11-30 08:58:22 PM  
Wake me when they make a three boob hookerbot.
 
2017-11-30 09:16:24 PM  
Why don't we start with operating trains automatically? This seems like it would be a much easier goal to reach.  Once we have that figured out, apply the lessons learned to automating cars.

That being said, I can't wait for the day when I can tell my car to X city and I can sleep till I get there.
 
2017-11-30 10:01:36 PM  
She was like, "GO TO MARS" and I was like, "Are you the biatch I ordered from backpage? Because I'm just looking for the girlfriend experience, nothing kinky."
 
2017-11-30 10:08:46 PM  

The_Sponge: What about hookers with three boobs?


img.fark.netView Full Size


/Geordi doesn't get a break.
 
2017-11-30 10:26:39 PM  

mjjt: HMS_Blinkin: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

That or regulation.  A few panicky Senators could kill autonomous vehicles very efficiently.  The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.

There are nearly a trillion reasons why legislators are strongly in favour of AVs (cost of road accidents $871 billion 2013, cost of congestion $124 billion)

Road accidents are overwhelmingly due to driver fault - alcohol, speeding, red light running, fatigue, distracted driving and use of cell phones (detailed figures here)

AVs are the only practical way to make an immediate dent in those figures.

Every dollar saved from road accident costs is a dollar that can be spent on their pet projects or tax cuts.

So legislators are strongly motivated to smooth the way rather than obstruct progress,


I know all of that. I am a strong advocate for AVs. But I also know how irrational our government can be. These are the same people who as I type are working to give rich people more money taken FROM poor people for no reason whatever. Having good reasons to do things doesn't carry a lot of weight.
 
2017-11-30 10:37:26 PM  
Wake me up when we get Gigolo Jane
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-30 10:46:26 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: mjjt: HMS_Blinkin: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

That or regulation.  A few panicky Senators could kill autonomous vehicles very efficiently.  The tech is making progress, but the real question is whether our government will keep up.

There are nearly a trillion reasons why legislators are strongly in favour of AVs (cost of road accidents $871 billion 2013, cost of congestion $124 billion)

Road accidents are overwhelmingly due to driver fault - alcohol, speeding, red light running, fatigue, distracted driving and use of cell phones (detailed figures here)

AVs are the only practical way to make an immediate dent in those figures.

Every dollar saved from road accident costs is a dollar that can be spent on their pet projects or tax cuts.

So legislators are strongly motivated to smooth the way rather than obstruct progress,

I know all of that. I am a strong advocate for AVs. But I also know how irrational our government can be. These are the same people who as I type are working to give rich people more money taken FROM poor people for no reason whatever. Having good reasons to do things doesn't carry a lot of weight.


Ah, but they are not behaving irrationally. Cruelly yes, but not irrationally - it is in their (short-term) interests to repay their donors and to give Trump a win. And they are calculating, hopefully, that they can fast-talk the suckers into believing that they are doing good.

Similarly, can predict that they will behave rationally by encouraging AVs bc that is in their interests too. As I said above, reducing costs in one part of a budget opens up spending in other areas. And road accident costs are purely deadweight - you have to pay them, but you don't get any return for the expense.
 
2017-12-01 12:17:51 AM  
If there's no driver, does that mean we can fark in the cab without fear?

/or fap?
 
2017-12-01 12:34:48 AM  

Bith Set Me Up: The_Sponge: What about hookers with three boobs?

[img.fark.net image 850x629][View Full Size image _x_]

/Geordi doesn't get a break.


ha wow..  yea that is a bummer, Geordi really need a GF that wasnt a hologram.
 
2017-12-01 12:40:28 AM  

darkmayo: Bith Set Me Up: The_Sponge: What about hookers with three boobs?

[img.fark.net image 850x629][View Full Size image _x_]

/Geordi doesn't get a break.

ha wow..  yea that is a bummer, Geordi really need a GF that wasnt a hologram.


She was supposed to be a recurring role like O'Brien, but that changed once she played the three-breasted hooker.

Which is pretty funny since Ronny Cox and Robert Picardo both made their way into Star Trek.
 
2017-12-01 02:13:45 AM  

derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.


Well I guess this discussion is over.  Obviously this never occurred to anyone at GM, Uber, Google, Apple, Ford, Tesla or Volkswagen.  As soon as they realize it they'll certainly stop spending millions.
 
2017-12-01 08:24:07 AM  
Gee, what a nice place to spend a cold night. Maybe get a nap, take a spit bath, and the custom paint job is gonna be marvelous.
 
2017-12-01 03:21:12 PM  

aerojockey: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

Well I guess this discussion is over.  Obviously this never occurred to anyone at GM, Uber, Google, Apple, Ford, Tesla or Volkswagen.  As soon as they realize it they'll certainly stop spending millions.


My mom's car had an emergency brake system that was supposed to stop the car for you in the case of an eminent collision.  It slammed on the breaks in the middle of the highway for no reason. She took it to the dealership. They checked it over and said there was nothing wrong with it. After the third time he took it back to the deal. Said I'm never getting in that car again.  "I'm giving you 5k and you're going to give me a brand new fully loaded one of this years model without EBS or we're going to be going to court."  Now if GM can't even get that right what makes you think they can make a self-driving car that wont kill you?
 
2017-12-01 03:37:11 PM  

derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.


They'll be insured and the insurance will cost vastly less because in normal conditions, they're MUCH safer.
 
2017-12-01 03:38:49 PM  

Phil McKraken: FTFA: GM is unique in its position that it will have a scalable commercial product in just two years.

GM can barely build cars. This is a punchline masquerading as a conclusion.


Hey, look! It's a time traveler from 1980. How'd you figure out this Internet thing?
 
2017-12-01 03:52:20 PM  

meanmutton: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

They'll be insured and the insurance will cost vastly less because in normal conditions, they're MUCH safer.


I disagree with that assumption.  I've been on the road over 25 years, never killed anyone.  Tesla can't say that.  The road is fundamentally non-homogenous, and despite advances in sensor technology, I don't think they will ever be able to cope with 100% of road situations.  Not saying humans can either, but when a human screws up, the manufacturer won't be the one getting sued.
 
2017-12-01 06:27:39 PM  

meanmutton: Phil McKraken: FTFA: GM is unique in its position that it will have a scalable commercial product in just two years.

GM can barely build cars. This is a punchline masquerading as a conclusion.

Hey, look! It's a time traveler from 1980. How'd you figure out this Internet thing?


You mean ARPANET?
 
2017-12-01 07:22:55 PM  

Prince George: aerojockey: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

Well I guess this discussion is over.  Obviously this never occurred to anyone at GM, Uber, Google, Apple, Ford, Tesla or Volkswagen.  As soon as they realize it they'll certainly stop spending millions.

My mom's car had an emergency brake system that was supposed to stop the car for you in the case of an eminent collision.  It slammed on the breaks in the middle of the highway for no reason. She took it to the dealership. They checked it over and said there was nothing wrong with it. After the third time he took it back to the deal. Said I'm never getting in that car again.  "I'm giving you 5k and you're going to give me a brand new fully loaded one of this years model without EBS or we're going to be going to court."  Now if GM can't even get that right what makes you think they can make a self-driving car that wont kill you?


I don't know why you thought mine was a good post to follow up your little anecdote to, since I was just talking about corporate willingness to invest in this technology and shared no actual opinion about safety, so you were basically arguing with an imaginary person.  But since you did follow up to mine, I should point out that your anecdote actually supports what I wrote.

derpes_simplex made a valid, if obvious, point about a potential drawback of this to the businesses who develop it, but he or she came to a hasty conclusion that simply isn't supported by the facts.  The big corporations already know that A. it's inevitable that this technology will fail and kill someone at some point, and B. they will almost certainly face lawsuits when it does.  They know this.  They've had planning meetings that weighed the potential benefits of the technology against the costs, which included projected liabilities, and they decided to continue to invest quite heavily in the technology.  And more businesses have come on board.

Your anecdote, if anything, would be a point in favor of them being willing to weather any lawsuits that come up.  (I can't say I regard it as such; one anecdote could just be a paranoid person who got a panic attack when the car tapped the brakes in caution.  But if true, it's a point in favor.)

Two years ago, I would have agreed that this could be a deal-breaker issue.  But it's clear that by now the big guys have made their decision, they have already started to deploy the technology and are planning lots more.  It's clear they think that this is going to be some combination of safe and lucrative enough to weather the lawsuits.  derpes_simplex is simply wrong: a few lawsuits won't derail everything.
 In the meantime, even though some of these cars will inevitably kill someone, I'll be happy to know that they are still way, way, way safer than human drivers, and that, unless there are way more safety issues than they expect (which would probably happen at a level that they're still much safer than humans), they will stick with it.
 
2017-12-01 07:28:29 PM  

derpes_simplex: meanmutton: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

They'll be insured and the insurance will cost vastly less because in normal conditions, they're MUCH safer.

I disagree with that assumption.  I've been on the road over 25 years, never killed anyone.  Tesla can't say that.  The road is fundamentally non-homogenous, and despite advances in sensor technology, I don't think they will ever be able to cope with 100% of road situations.  Not saying humans can either, but when a human screws up, the manufacturer won't be the one getting sued.


You probably haven't driven a million miles in your lifetime.  Tesla cars have driven about 200 million miles on so far.  When you get to 200 million miles, let us know how your track record compares.

Like I said in the above post, your point is valid, but it's just not enough to support your conclusion.  The big companies already know this, they've already accounted for it, and they've decided to push harder.
 
2017-12-01 07:47:42 PM  

aerojockey: derpes_simplex: meanmutton: derpes_simplex: Once the first few machine caused deaths occur, and the lawsuits start flying, this will fall flat.  If you can't sue a driver, you will sue the manufacturer.  Manufacturers don't like products that get them sued.

They'll be insured and the insurance will cost vastly less because in normal conditions, they're MUCH safer.

I disagree with that assumption.  I've been on the road over 25 years, never killed anyone.  Tesla can't say that.  The road is fundamentally non-homogenous, and despite advances in sensor technology, I don't think they will ever be able to cope with 100% of road situations.  Not saying humans can either, but when a human screws up, the manufacturer won't be the one getting sued.

You probably haven't driven a million miles in your lifetime.  Tesla cars have driven about 200 million miles on so far.  When you get to 200 million miles, let us know how your track record compares.

Like I said in the above post, your point is valid, but it's just not enough to support your conclusion.  The big companies already know this, they've already accounted for it, and they've decided to push harder.


You make very fair points.  I do however think that the level of safety obtainable with automated cars is being grossly overestimated.  It's one thing to have autopilot on something hurtling though the relatively homogenous skies.  It's another entirely to make such a system that works on wildly differing road surfaces, weather conditions, and in the shortened reaction times required for road use.

My conclusion is that there will probably never be 100% automated cars that can operate in any otherwise drivable condition or road.  They may be fine on highways, where obstacles are fewer and farther between, and in cities where speeds are lower offering better stopping distances.  But what happens when your automated car turns onto a dirt road in the backwoods of Georgia and doesn't know what to do?  Does it just stop and tell you to call a tow truck?  In all likelihood, the ability to manually drive the vehicle must still be present.  It can't be 100% automatic.

If that premise is true, and I think it is, then you have to have the ability for the driver to take over at a moment's notice.  That's not only not automatic, it's problematic.  Drivers will get less and less practice driving their vehicle, and when they suddenly have to take over for the computer, they will be rusty and unfamiliar with the handling characteristics of the car.  That will lead to an increase in accidents.

As to whether or not car companies have done the calculus correctly, who knows.  Tyler Durden probably has an opinion on that.  But remember, it didn't take all that many lawsuits to bankrupt Takata over those airbags.  recall costs on top of the lawsuits did them in.

"On June 25, 2017, Takata filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States and filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan, owing more in compensation than is possible for its survival. The surviving assets are to be sold to its largest competitor, Chinese owned and U.S. (Michigan) based Key Safety Systems, for about $1.6 billion."

Now, what do you think the chances are that there will be flaws in these driverless systems that manufacturers will conceal, eventually come to light, and cause them to be sued?  I say almost 100%.
 
2017-12-01 08:11:46 PM  

derpes_simplex: My conclusion is that there will probably never be 100% automated cars that can operate in any otherwise drivable condition or road. They may be fine on highways, where obstacles are fewer and farther between, and in cities where speeds are lower offering better stopping distances. But what happens when your automated car turns onto a dirt road in the backwoods of Georgia and doesn't know what to do? Does it just stop and tell you to call a tow truck? In all likelihood, the ability to manually drive the vehicle must still be present. It can't be 100% automatic.


The possibility that a self-driving car might have trouble navigating a dirt road is not likely to affect my decision to take a self-driving taxi in a city.

This whole line of thinking confounds me.  "Self-driving cars will not be able to handle every situation ever, therefore they are completely inappropiate in any situation whatsoever."
 
2017-12-01 08:29:34 PM  

aerojockey: derpes_simplex: My conclusion is that there will probably never be 100% automated cars that can operate in any otherwise drivable condition or road. They may be fine on highways, where obstacles are fewer and farther between, and in cities where speeds are lower offering better stopping distances. But what happens when your automated car turns onto a dirt road in the backwoods of Georgia and doesn't know what to do? Does it just stop and tell you to call a tow truck? In all likelihood, the ability to manually drive the vehicle must still be present. It can't be 100% automatic.

The possibility that a self-driving car might have trouble navigating a dirt road is not likely to affect my decision to take a self-driving taxi in a city.

This whole line of thinking confounds me.  "Self-driving cars will not be able to handle every situation ever, therefore they are completely inappropiate in any situation whatsoever."


The first part of that quoted section is accurate, I never espoused the second half.  What I am saying however, is that there will never be a time when 100% of the vehicles on the road are autonomous.  And I also seriously doubt how far cars with no manual override will get.  As far as cabs go, while a human driver may or may not be better than the automated car, at least there is a life on the line besides just mine as a passenger.  Computers don't have fear, and fear is something that can keep you alive in a car.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 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