Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920
Results 571 to 585 of 585

Thread: Imagine Computer-driven Vehicles

  1. #571
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    has anyone mentioned George Hotz? Apologies if so

    http://www.bloomberg.com/features/20...f-driving-car/
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  2. #572
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Obviously, you wouldn't switch over to automated driving until it was shown to have no more risk than human drivers.
    I don't know that that's the case. Once upon a time, there was "no driving", which was replaced by "lots of driving", even though "lots of driving" brought about quite few casualties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Automation is about the only path I see with a real possibility of significantly reducing traffic deaths and injuries.
    I ride in automated vehicles all the time, although they don't mix with the general vehicle population.

  3. #573
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    It would seem that if you are driving a car that automatically slows down to the speed limit and keeps a proper distance from the car in front of it
    it may have just the effect you were looking for , and it doesn't involve complete automation , only a little technology intercept with the
    accelerator . The car's top speed is governed. And it must behave in accordance with the speed it is traveling at IE it cannot tail gate the vehicle in front
    and it can't speed up and slalom through the traffic like it was the only car on the road. So Ruprect won't hurt himself. Michael Caine
    It sounds like some of the wrong kind of fun would be scrapped , and we could get on with the business of safe driving. Not bad.

  4. #574
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Florida.
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by pindo View Post
    I don't know that that's the case. Once upon a time, there was "no driving", which was replaced by "lots of driving", even though "lots of driving" brought about quite few casualties.
    ...
    Maybe off-topic, but when any legislator uses the argument "If it saves one life, it's worth it," I become certain that his bill is a bad one and that he himself is expendable. With that kind of logic, there'd be 5 mph speed limits, or better still, "no driving."



    Edited to add: When I said "expendable," I meant that I'd vote for the other guy next time. Did not mean to imply that this one should be sacrificed.
    Last edited by DonM435; 2015-Dec-25 at 03:53 PM.

  5. #575
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by DonM435 View Post
    Maybe off-topic, but when any legislator uses the argument "If it saves one life, it's worth it," I become certain that his bill is a bad one and that he himself is expendable. With that kind of logic, there'd be 5 mph speed limits, or better still, "no driving."
    There are all kinds of human activities that wouldn't occur at all, or that would be greatly curtailed, if people actually acted in accordance with the frequently expressed sentiment that human life is priceless. I haven't met the person yet whose actions are consistent with that belief, and yet the level of vitriol likely to result if one actually points this out - well, people don't like having to confront the fact that they don't live up to their own high-minded standards.

    People ride in mechanised vehicles all the time, endangering their own lives and the lives of others. Many of the trips thus taken are not at all necessary for survival. People ride in aeroplanes to go on holiday. They drive in cars for recreational value, to see the country side, to go to the park, or to go to the new restaurant across town. They choose to live long distances from the places where they earn a living, resulting in a long daily commute, which exposes them (and possibly others) to danger twice a day, because the can afford nicer homes in such locations. If human life were priceless, such things should not be taking place.

    I once heard an commercial pilot state that he will not fly the plane unless he can ensure that his passengers are 100% safe. I don't believe him, because I don't think any airline would continue to employ pilots who never fly.

    For some reason, people get hot and bothered about risks which are far smaller than risks they face without the slightest trepidation every day. Terrorism is the greatest threat of the day, even though tens of thousands of times as many people die from obesity. The cost-effectiveness of anti-terrorism measures has been studied, and found to be approximately one million times lower, in terms of life-years saved, than the effectiveness of anti-smoking programmes.

    I guess deaths from driverless vehicles are like deaths from terrorism, and deaths from driven vehicles are like deaths from obesity or smoking - one seems many many thousands of times, or millions of times, more acceptable than the other.

  6. #576
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    We can't alter your value structure. That's not really the purpose of the thread. I imagine the very real problems with the scheme.
    You seem unconcerned. And what would you gain from this car?

  7. #577
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    We can't alter your value structure. That's not really the purpose of the thread.
    I agree with that, someone who expresses a horror at any number of hypothetical future deaths, however low, but expresses total comfort with over a million vehicle deaths a year, even after multiple people have pointed this statistic out to him - yes, I think that person is not likely to alter my value structure.

    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    I imagine the very real problems with the scheme.
    If they are real, why do you imagine them?

    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    You seem unconcerned. And what would you gain from this car?
    I don't know that I'm as unconcerned with vehicle deaths as you appear to be in the other thread, but I travel by a driverless vehicle ("car" is your word, not mine) at a minimum several times a week. It's one of several that exist here. The system has been in operation for over a decade, two more have opened since then, and another will open tomorrow. The one I use serves more than half a million people a day and is, as I already mentioned, one of several in operation. It is fast, reliable, convenient, and safe. In its time of operation, there have been several break downs and other such incidents, but there has not been a single death. In fact, no one has been killed travelling on any of the automated systems so far.

    There are also roadways here. Despite licensing and vehicle inspection requirements far stricter than those found in most other places in the world, there are deaths every single week, without exception on the roads here. Almost all of those deaths are due to mistakes made by drivers, and many of the victims are people other than the drivers at fault. People sometimes drive too fast, after they've been drinking, they switch lanes without signalling or looking, they are distracted by children or other passengers and don't pay attention, and so on. There was a drag-racing incident a few years ago that killed several people, which, all by itself, is infinitely many times more than have been killed on the driverless systems (specifically, zero).

    We could close down the driverless systems. The result would most likely be that some of the nearly million trips per day now taken on the three systems would not be taken, and others would be taken on the roadways instead, resulting in an increase in the death toll. I'm not willing to see additional blood spilled because you are uncomfortable with driverless systems - that's not part of my value system.

    Perhaps the expressions of horror at the prospect of people being killed in driverless systems would have more impact if the person making them would show equal concern about the bloodshed that is already taking place on the roadways every single day, rather than downplaying them or simply ignoring comments about them. But I'm not the first (or the second, or the third) person to point that out.
    Last edited by pindo; 2015-Dec-25 at 06:00 PM.

  8. #578
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    And just exactly where is "Here" ? And what famous roads and in what kind of weather does this "car" operate in ?

  9. #579
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by pindo View Post
    I agree with that, someone who expresses a horror at any number of hypothetical future deaths, however low, but expresses total comfort with over a million vehicle deaths a year, even after multiple people have pointed this statistic out to him - yes, I think that person is not likely to alter my value structure.



    If they are real, why do you imagine them?



    I don't know that I'm as unconcerned with vehicle deaths as you appear to be in the other thread, but I travel by a driverless vehicle ("car" is your word, not mine) at a minimum several times a week. It's one of several that exist here. The system has been in operation for over a decade, two more have opened since then, and another will open tomorrow. The one I use serves more than half a million people a day and is, as I already mentioned, one of several in operation. It is fast, reliable, convenient, and safe. In its time of operation, there have been several break downs and other such incidents, but there has not been a single death. In fact, no one has been killed travelling on any of the automated systems so far.

    There are also roadways here. Despite licensing and vehicle inspection requirements far stricter than those found in most other places in the world, there are deaths every single week, without exception on the roads here. Almost all of those deaths are due to mistakes made by drivers, and many of the victims are people other than the drivers at fault. People sometimes drive too fast, after they've been drinking, they switch lanes without signalling or looking, they are distracted by children or other passengers and don't pay attention, and so on. There was a drag-racing incident a few years ago that killed several people, which, all by itself, is infinitely many times more than have been killed on the driverless systems (specifically, zero).

    We could close down the driverless systems. The result would most likely be that some of the nearly million trips per day now taken on the three systems would not be taken, and others would be taken on the roadways instead, resulting in an increase in the death toll. I'm not willing to see additional blood spilled because you are uncomfortable with driverless systems - that's not part of my value system.

    Perhaps the expressions of horror at the prospect of people being killed in driverless systems would have more impact if the person making them would show equal concern about the bloodshed that is already taking place on the roadways every single day, rather than downplaying them or simply ignoring comments about them. But I'm not the first (or the second, or the third) person to point that out.
    I would like to ask: What kind of system is that?

  10. #580
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    Hi pindo, If you are well connected to the design and manufacture of this thing, perhaps you're in a position to relate how marvelous the components are, the connections, and back-ups , and safeguards employed ? Just curious.

  11. #581
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    Hi pindo, If you are well connected to the design and manufacture of this thing, perhaps you're in a position to relate how marvelous the components are, the connections, and back-ups , and safeguards employed ? Just curious.
    Yes, I am sure you are just curious, and not asking for some other reason. As it happens, I have not been involved in the design or manufacture of any automated vehicle systems, so I don't really have any information on them that would be better than what is readily available from public sources. Regarding the marvelousness of the components and other aspects, I don't really know. I would imagine that they are really not all that different than the marvelous components that are used in driver-controlled vehicles, such as nearly all automobiles, about which you said

    We have a system of dedicated responsibility, and it works.
    Recalling another quote,

    I imagine the very real problems with the scheme.
    You seem unconcerned.
    We don't have to imagine the very real problems with the scheme that places humans behind the wheels of automobiles; we can see the thousands of body bags every day. Not only do you seen unconcerned with this, you seem quite comfortable taking other people to task for placing a low value on human life. Do you have a mirror on hand?

    But compared to the "system of dedicated responsibility" that "works", the automated systems that I have ridden on every day this week are a miserable failure - they haven't killed anyone in more than a decade of operation. But maybe their performance will improve.

  12. #582
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    What automated system? The thread has long ago acknowledged the situation of the elevator and the airport shuttle (on tracks...back and forth for a minute with no one else on the track) . But the driver-less car describes a different type of driving world......altogether. Surely you grasp the difference? Surely.

  13. #583
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pontoise France
    Posts
    2,319

    Confession.

    I must say this thread have completely changed my mind on the subject : Now I can see the usefulness of these driverless cars.
    Why ? I see several reasons :


    • First : It would be good to stop the slaughter !
    • Two : I am now 66 and last year I suffered from my left feet ,for several days I could not drive ,it showed me that there is many conditions where an automated vehicle would be welcome. And Imagine you are disabled or blind or too old or whatever condition.
    • Three : There is too much cars on the road and too much rules and radars and driving is no fun today.
    • Four : Driving a car is a waste of time. To the contrary , in a train or in these future automed cars you could read ,work on your computer ,watch a moovie and so on . . .
    • Five : My reasons for being hostile to automated cars were ,hum ,let's be be honest , not very bright ! Opposition to novelty, sensation of losing control and such things.


    Now I think these automated cars are far from being ready but when they will be it will be a great progress.

    Thanks to Inclusa for starting this thread and for all the participants.

  14. #584
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    10,252
    I've always wanted a car that would come when it's called: this way when I'm forced to park at some mall lot during a downpour, I can be dropped off at the entrance, tell my car to go park, and text it to come an pick me up when I'm through wasting my time and money shopping. This could also be useful on city streets, since I do not parallel park particularly well (my father could parallel park his Crown Vic in a spot I'd have trouble putting a Smart): let the car park itself.

    Other than this major feature*, I suspect that most automotive automation for the first decade or so will be accident avoidance technologies, like preventing accidental lane departure (partly here), automated braking to reduce the number of rear-end collisions (partly here, with adaptive cruise control. As an aside, humans take about a second to put on brakes when needed), and possibly skid prevention (ABS is a start).


    --------------------------------

    * This would probably be bad for the valet parking industry. Instead of giving your keys to the valet in the hope of getting an undamaged car back, you just tell it to go park someplace.
    Last edited by swampyankee; 2015-Dec-30 at 10:07 PM.
    Information about American English usage here and here. Floating point issues? Please read this before posting.

    How do things fly? This explains it all.

    Actually they can't: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.



  15. #585
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    Yep, I'd agree with that. Simply restricting the speed cars can travel at will remove the temptation to slalom through traffic , disabling a few nuts here and there. Not a bad idea.

Similar Threads

  1. Imagine
    By Swift in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2010-Oct-15, 05:41 PM
  2. Driven
    By sarongsong in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2007-Nov-19, 07:37 PM
  3. Imagine...
    By m1omg in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-04, 02:31 PM
  4. Imagine this
    By Mortac in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2005-Oct-25, 10:22 PM
  5. Can you imagine the FIREWORKS.........
    By Hazzard in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2005-Mar-27, 11:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •