Self-Driving Cars

Discussion in 'AK Polls' started by loopstick, Dec 5, 2016.

?

Would You Buy A Self-Driving Car?

  1. Yes

    30 vote(s)
    21.0%
  2. Maybe

    18 vote(s)
    12.6%
  3. No

    95 vote(s)
    66.4%
  1. loopstick

    loopstick AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,512
    Location:
    Shit 'n' Piss, Texas
    First I considered the obvious - that the "guilty" car turned in front of the "smart" car and the "smart" car missed several routine visual cues and failed to take evasive action. One of the best ways to avoid accidents is to pay attention and avoid the accidents that the "other guy" causes.
     
  2. +48V

    +48V hi-fi or die

    Messages:
    2,379
    Location:
    Tega Cay
    Seems to me you like to play pretty fast and loose with the term 'obvious' here. Based upon the article and presumably the police report, there's nothing to suggest that a human driver would/could have avoided this collision. Your assumption and misdirected blame here is unfounded malarkey.

    :rolleyes: You clever devil you. Do continue to have fun on your fishing expedition. Bon voyage....:bye:

     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  3. loopstick

    loopstick AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,512
    Location:
    Shit 'n' Piss, Texas
    The suggestion came to me from decades of alert driving experience. YMPV - your mileage probably varied.
     
  4. loopstick

    loopstick AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,512
    Location:
    Shit 'n' Piss, Texas
  5. gslikker

    gslikker Super Member

    Messages:
    1,592
    Location:
    Close to Alkmaar, Netherlands
    It needs to be a dead child to trigger further investigation, I guess.
    Still, it proves also simple tasks are beyond control.

    Of course, my comment only applies if I am not lured by some april 1 joke.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
  6. Cosmicmes

    Cosmicmes Active Member

    Messages:
    157
    Too many variables for the computers to handle. IF they ever get to %99.999999999 safe, maybe....
     
    John James likes this.
  7. loopstick

    loopstick AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,512
    Location:
    Shit 'n' Piss, Texas
  8. ilusndweller

    ilusndweller Super Member

    Messages:
    4,932
    What about all the crashes in the last 5 months? Have they stopped testing these?
     
  9. ilusndweller

    ilusndweller Super Member

    Messages:
    4,932
  10. loopstick

    loopstick AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,512
    Location:
    Shit 'n' Piss, Texas
    Interesting. Seems to be about the safety and regulation of the development cycle of this technology. Probably cuz the technology is so unusually shaky to begin with and involves putting public safety at risk. So the politics don't advance or validate the technology - they just attempt to deal with it.
     
  11. ilusndweller

    ilusndweller Super Member

    Messages:
    4,932
    As long as the car companies dont follow the "no way in hell is your lid gonna be compatible with my tupperware" model, we should be fine...:)
     
  12. loopstick

    loopstick AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,512
    Location:
    Shit 'n' Piss, Texas
    But even in that scenario the lid was fully functional as a lid, and the incompatible container was also fully functional as a container. Neither of the two key components of autonomous driving - detection and analysis - are anywhere near being fully functional. Nor will they be until some serious breakthroughs are made in machine "cognizance" if that's the right term.
     
  13. Celt

    Celt Super Maude Super Mod Subscriber

    Messages:
    38,315
    Location:
    Paragould, Arkansas
    Folks...keep POLITICS out of this discussion!
     
    John James likes this.
  14. bshorey

    bshorey AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,667
    Location:
    Gilroy, CA, USA
    Interesting point. I wonder when they'll get to the point where they recognize that the cars would be better off communicating with each other, and also with some specific 'autonomous vehicle sensors' built into the roads or signage. It seems as though everybody is focused on building systems that result in fully 'aware' singular car, where I think they'd be much better off building a more cooperative system.

    I've got a colleague who just started in an r&d position at one of the autonomous vehicle groups out here. His guestimate is that all the easy stuff has been done, but it will take another 5-10 years to cover all the edge cases. There's still no question in my mind that it's only a matter of time, but in the mean time, I wonder why they are letting these things loose on the road in their current state.

    bs
     
  15. loopstick

    loopstick AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,512
    Location:
    Shit 'n' Piss, Texas
    One edge case they'll probably never solve is the flooded pothole. Discriminating between a shallow puddle and a nasty pothole filled to the brim with water is something people just develop a "sixth sense" for. Another one is "reading" a deer's mind who just seems to be hanging out beyond the shoulder. The GM Proving Ground in Milford MI had (and still probably has) a wide variety of real world road types and conditions. They need a place like that where the cars can deal with all the conditions (and each other).
     
  16. ilusndweller

    ilusndweller Super Member

    Messages:
    4,932
    I still want to know all the crashes in the last 5 months(or longer). You know if there were any of significance, they definitely would make the news. Show me the link to *any* significant (or any period) crash in the past 5 months(or longer). Or did they stop testing these?

    No news is good news...

    6th sense for pothole depth? There is little doubt in my mind that a self-driving car will handle any and all potholes better than humans. Drive straight thru it. If your rim/wheel gets damaged so be it. Potholes causing injury is not that significant IMHO.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  17. ilusndweller

    ilusndweller Super Member

    Messages:
    4,932
    I too could rattle off "what ifs" that would lead to a crash. Peopla are gonna die, just less of them. Im referring to 15 or so years from now when the technology has matured.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  18. ilusndweller

    ilusndweller Super Member

    Messages:
    4,932
    dupe post. but....

    reaction times will be less than the average human.

    better awareness of surroundings and thus the ability to drive much more defensively

    commute times will be lessened

    do humans typically get injured or die when they hit a deer?
     
  19. ETLS

    ETLS metacarpophalangealcranium Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,966
    Location:
    Texas
  20. ilusndweller

    ilusndweller Super Member

    Messages:
    4,932
    I think the following data is correct. 200 deaths due to deer collisions (out of 1.23 million deer accidents) from June2011-July2012 in the U.S. About 33,500 people died in all car accidents during that time period and of those 33,500 just over 10,000 were alcohol related deaths.

    I mentioned these vehicles will have (much) better reaction times than the average human. This assumes of course that the technology is advanced enough to recognize it as something to be avoided (or not).
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017

Share This Page