Self-Driving Cars

Would You Buy A Self-Driving Car?

  • Yes

    Votes: 51 14.2%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 44 12.2%
  • No

    Votes: 265 73.6%

  • Total voters
    360
I like driving and every car I've ever owned has had a manual tranmission -- even my current Honda C-RV. I just like being able to control as many aspects of my vehicle as a I can (but I appreciate ABS). I'm a good driver -- last moving violation was for speeding in my VW camper bus -- going 25 mph in a 15 zone, and this was after I criticized the campus cops in the school newspaper. That was in 1977.

But I live in the SF Bay Are, where everyone seems to drive either:
  • by the rules of the country they were born in.
  • with the knowledge that the rules only apply to others,
  • that whatever they want to do takes precedent over everyone else (why else stop in a roadway, turn on your blinkers and spend 10 minutes texting), and
  • they're in a big hurry (yet no one else is).

Unfortunately, the state of California no longer requires regular written or driving tests, so we have become the state of drivers that brains forgot.

When I was a cop reporter on the local newspaper, I learned two important thinks from local police
  • It's not against the law to be stupid, and
  • It's hard to enforce DWHA -- Driving with head up ass.
So, a great number of so-called drivers out there, as well as those of us who actually pay attention while, driving, would benefit from the DWHA-ers having self-driving cars. Especially for older folks (my mom is 86 and still drives better than many), it will provide them with a mobility that will allow them to keep living on their own, which is a great boon to society. But I think the bigger answer is not to adapt existing designs to be robo-cars, but to develop new auto-transportation methods that can accommodate a wide range of needs. But I hope to keep driving myself until they unclench my cold dead fingers from my stick shift...
 
Hmm... there is the statistical argument that self-driving cars will reduce overall traffic deaths. The way that's gonna work is self-driving cars will kill fewer stupid drivers and kill more smart drivers. So far the self-driving cars have an unusually high accident rate in "not at fault" accidents. They spastically slow down and get rear ended. But there's more to safety than being "not at fault". I personally have helped dozens of stupid drivers by anticipating - as no machine can - and reacting properly to prevent accidents that I would not be "at fault" in.
 
And along with electrified bicycles, running eliptical bicycles (eliptigo), and many other advances to bicycles, here's Google's take on the Autonomous Google Bicycle, available next year.

 
Voted yes. Would love it. Far less stressful, could be more productive doing things, or have more time to relax and listen to music, take a nap, or something else. Heck when I worked shift work this would be a Godsend. Many a morning when coming back from night shift I was not safe driving home. Worked that for 21 years, and was fortunate to never have an issue. Actually the new lane drifting technology would have helped a lot for this, but a self driving car would be awesome.

Regards
Mister Pig
 
And along with electrified bicycles, running eliptical bicycles (eliptigo), and many other advances to bicycles, here's Google's take on the Autonomous Google Bicycle, available next year.

What happens when the front tire gets pinched in some grating? Wear your helmets yuppies.

Oops -
Only available on April 1st
 
Hmm... there is the statistical argument that self-driving cars will reduce overall traffic deaths.

The primary source of improved safety in emerging vehicle technologies is from vehicle to vehicle connectivity (and not from 'self driving features). This is the subject of a new NHTSA requirement announced this week (developed over the last 20 years). It uses GPS signals along with new on-board computing systems to build 360 degree awareness of risks (within 300 yards) to warn the driver and to enable the drive by wire systems to avert collisions (should the driver not react). It is not theoretical (statistical) but rather has been demonstrated in large scale pilot demonstrations (by UMTRI).

So far the self-driving cars have an unusually high accident rate in "not at fault" accidents. They spastically slow down and get rear ended.

Right now autonomous vehicles are not ready for prime time. Their systems do not duplicate the ability of a human to reason and to apply this reasoning to the task at hand. As a result their operation defies expectation, from the perspective of a human drive. So accidents happen.

Further, there are some situation that they can not solve, today - such as a double parked car. An autonomous vehicle would just sit and wait for the double parked car to move.

But there's more to safety than being "not at fault". I personally have helped dozens of stupid drivers by anticipating - as no machine can - and reacting properly to prevent accidents that I would not be "at fault" in.

yup.
 
It is not theoretical (statistical) but rather has been demonstrated in large scale pilot demonstrations (by UMTRI).
My point about the reduction in overall traffic death statistics is that self-driving cars will kill fewer stupid drivers and kill more smart drivers - with a net "savings" in reduced deaths. What this will mean is that a lot of drunk / stupid single vehicle type "Darwin" accidents will be avoided by machine processing. However - that same machine processing will screw up in bizarre ways and send innocent smart responsible drivers flying off cliffs, etc.

The drunks and idiots will be smartened up to machine levels of competency - and the sober responsible drivers will be dumbed down to those same levels of competency. One size fits all. If you're a stupid drunk your future gets brighter - if you're smart and responsible your future gets darker. That's the trade.
 
This just in ...

A safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further examination of this issue does not appear to be warranted

The vehicle drives into and under the trailer of an 18-wheeler, gets its top sheared off presumably decapitating the driver, then keeps on "smart" driving (headless) at speed until it finally comes to rest 300 yards later after leaving the road and dodging a couple of trees then hitting a telephone pole in some guy's front yard. No defects. No bugs. The algorithm did what it was supposed to do. Beta testing - tweak it and try again.

.
 
so the crash did not disconnect the battery?
Now, to let the show go on, "they" probably count a certain death toll as normal, put on some annoyance calculation factor measured at the public, if the figure is good they go on if nothing happened?
Okay, lets open up the windows, put in the software update and maybe it will work. common sense downloaded okay, connection closed.
Now, the world has to move on, but if something like that happens when you are a human driver and make it alive, you are a "stupid and reckless driver"


And along with electrified bicycles, running eliptical bicycles (eliptigo), and many other advances to bicycles, here's Google's take on the Autonomous Google Bicycle, available next year.


Actually, it was last year april first?
Next april 1st there will be a new software update, because when these bicycles are in the center of Amsterdam, they automatically take a detour to the Amsterdam red light district, where they stop at the red light district guided tours, mostly populated by American, Japanese and Chinese tourists. :)
 
Now, to let the show go on, "they" probably count a certain death toll as normal, put on some annoyance calculation factor measured at the public, if the figure is good they go on if nothing happened?
I was at a meeting at a large auto company many years ago and the topic was electronic throttle control. One of the team leads mentioned that there was an actual non-zero threshold - number of deaths per million man miles or something like that - and if their forecasts fell below that threshold the design moved forward and the deaths below the threshold were considered to be part of the cost of doing business. Everybody including the team leads had this funny creeped-out look on their faces. Then we kinda abstracted the concept and proceeded with the meeting.
 
When they become viable they will be mandatory for you and me.

Actually, there is already something that will pick you up and drop you where you want to go. It is called a Taxi Cab. They are an example of how things work. You develop the system hiring union trained experts. Then you replace the experts with scabs. Then you replace the scabs with foreigners who can't speak the local language. Then you replace the foreigners with machines, which is what you guys are wanting to do here.

Now, the not you and me's, they own limo's driven by ex race car drivers who have been sent to evasive driving school, and body guard school, who they pay $100,000/yr. Damned if they are going to ride in a machine driven taxi cab, much less a bus. The will still have their limo's.

But, I am out of the work force, so I will never be replaced by a machine. You guys though, probably will be. When that happens to enough of you they will do away with public assistance.

When I was a kid, there were guys working for the city making a living for their families pushing 55 gallon drums on wheels down the street using a push broom and shovel to clean the street. Your jobs are going to go the same place theirs did.

I suggest you become a limo driver for some politician.
 
Self driving cars could be another target for hackers.

Since I do a lot of off road driving I prefer to do the steering myself.
 
Last edited:
More inside baseball - there was a vehicle notorious around the EMC test facility affectionately nicknamed "Herbie".
 
Back
Top Bottom