Author Topic: Self-Driving Cars  (Read 40991 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4218
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1140 on: February 16, 2017, 02:22:52 PM »
If you think the only way you can know if a road is slippery is by feel, I can understand why you don't trust your own driving skills.

I trust mine, and I have the empirical evidence to back my perception. 

The scariest things on the road are people who think they are better drivers than they are. Nearly everyone overestimates their own driving skill. Young men far more than most. I know my driving is fallible, because I'm human. If you think you are a better driver than a well-designed autonomous car will be, then you are precisely who I am scared of.

And if you've ever actually listened to the SGU podcast, then you should know that your own personal experience does not constitute evidence. Quite the opposite. Your assertion that your own experience constitutes evidence, shows that you are incapable of assessing the actual risks involved.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online Tassie Dave

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1141 on: February 16, 2017, 09:57:40 PM »
Of course anyone can tell if a road is covered in snow, ice, excess water or any other visible substance that will cause loss of traction, but I doubt they could tell in 100% of cases.

Anyone who has hit a patch of black ice (ice that is thin and see through, so the road appears normal, hence "black" ice) knows that the first you know of it is when you lose traction, often as you are going around a corner. I travel a lot on country mountain roads. You can hit this even when the temperature is way above 0 degrees.
Also spilled oil or other fluids that you don't see until you lose traction. These are the situations where a computerised anti-lock brake system will out perform a driver.



Online phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1142 on: February 16, 2017, 10:05:02 PM »
Simon,

You have no evidence that a computer can handle driving in snow. 

Would you rather be driving next to a person or an unmanned computer on a snowy road TODAY? 

Online phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1143 on: February 16, 2017, 10:08:43 PM »
If you think the only way you can know if a road is slippery is by feel, I can understand why you don't trust your own driving skills.

I trust mine, and I have the empirical evidence to back my perception. 

The scariest things on the road are people who think they are better drivers than they are. Nearly everyone overestimates their own driving skill. Young men far more than most. I know my driving is fallible, because I'm human. If you think you are a better driver than a well-designed autonomous car will be, then you are precisely who I am scared of.

And if you've ever actually listened to the SGU podcast, then you should know that your own personal experience does not constitute evidence. Quite the opposite. Your assertion that your own experience constitutes evidence, shows that you are incapable of assessing the actual risks involved.

One's own experience isn't evidence?  Its the opposite of evidence???

And the SGU has taught this is true? Wow.  The SGU has spoken! 


Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4776
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1144 on: February 16, 2017, 10:57:44 PM »
anecdotes are not good evidence. You can't take a single case and generalize. It's not valid.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Online phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1145 on: February 16, 2017, 11:18:35 PM »
anecdotes are not good evidence. You can't take a single case and generalize. It's not valid.

Depending on what is being looked at, often times anecdotes are the only evidence.   

So to suggest that it is the opposite of evidence is just plain silly. 

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4776
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1146 on: February 17, 2017, 12:09:35 AM »
If you think the only way you can know if a road is slippery is by feel, I can understand why you don't trust your own driving skills.

I trust mine, and I have the empirical evidence to back my perception.


Depending on what is being looked at, often times anecdotes are the only evidence.   

So to suggest that it is the opposite of evidence is just plain silly. 

But it's the opposite of empirical evidence.

To suggest otherwise is  silly, indeed.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Online arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4697
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1147 on: February 17, 2017, 12:49:33 AM »
I wouldn't travel in a regular helicopter for leisure, because they are one of the more deadly forms of transportation.

Really? How do the stats compare to road deaths?

Offline 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1148 on: February 17, 2017, 02:27:56 AM »
I wouldn't travel in a regular helicopter for leisure, because they are one of the more deadly forms of transportation.

Really? How do the stats compare to road deaths?

It's not quite apples to apples, which they talk about in this article, but it does appear to be a lot worse whatever way you look at it.

There is this stat, "Personal helicopters, often operated by inexperienced pilots, crash 18 times as often (PDF) as commercial helicopter taxis.", that hints at self-flying helicopters having a significant potential for reducing fatalities. But they may still be worse than manually driven cars, unless it can be improved significantly beyond the capabilities of a skilled pilot.

Here's a thread on a forum for helicopter enthusiasts responding to that article/a blog post referencing the article.

Can't find any overall transport reviews that include helicopters, which could mean it's too small a field to fairly compare, or that it's never been good enough to compete outside of niche areas.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 02:58:08 AM by 2397 »

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1149 on: February 17, 2017, 07:56:00 AM »
A bit off-topic, but autopilots in planes are enough better than human pilots so as to be required in many cases.

For instance:


Special CAT II and CAT III operations

In contrast to other operations, CAT III weather minima do not provide sufficient visual references to allow a manual landing to be made. CAT III minima depend on roll-out control and redundancy of the autopilot, because they give only enough time for the pilot to decide whether the aircraft will land in the touchdown zone (basically CAT IIIa) and to ensure safety during rollout (basically CAT IIIb). Therefore, an automatic landing system is mandatory to perform Category III operations. Its reliability must be sufficient to control the aircraft to touchdown in CAT IIIa operations and through rollout to a safe taxi speed in CAT IIIb (and CAT IIIc when authorized).[8] However, special approval has been granted to some operators for hand-flown CAT III approaches using a head-up display (HUD) guidance which provides the pilot with an image viewed through the windshield with eyes focused at infinity, of necessary electronic guidance to land the airplane with no true outside visual references.

(Source: Wikipedia)

Stipulated that autonomous driving poses a different set of problems than autopilot-assisted flying, but the above shows that in really poor weather conditions autopilots already outperform even well trained and proficient human pilots.

Autopilots are also required at some cruise altitudes for reduced separation standards, because it's a given they do a much better job of holding an assigned altitude than a human can. I think this is roughly analogous to autonomous cars being allowed to follow each other more closely due to vastly reduced reaction times.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 08:29:25 AM by Fast Eddie B »
"And what it all boils down to is that no one's really got it figured out just yet" - Alanis Morisette
• • •
"I doubt that!" - James Randi

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4218
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1150 on: February 17, 2017, 08:25:24 AM »
If you think the only way you can know if a road is slippery is by feel, I can understand why you don't trust your own driving skills.

I trust mine, and I have the empirical evidence to back my perception. 

The scariest things on the road are people who think they are better drivers than they are. Nearly everyone overestimates their own driving skill. Young men far more than most. I know my driving is fallible, because I'm human. If you think you are a better driver than a well-designed autonomous car will be, then you are precisely who I am scared of.

And if you've ever actually listened to the SGU podcast, then you should know that your own personal experience does not constitute evidence. Quite the opposite. Your assertion that your own experience constitutes evidence, shows that you are incapable of assessing the actual risks involved.

One's own experience isn't evidence?  Its the opposite of evidence???

And the SGU has taught this is true? Wow.  The SGU has spoken! 



Confirmation bias, too small sample size, faulty memory of actual events, and a host of other ways your brain plays tricks on you render personal experience inadequate to draw legitimate conclusions.

Personal experience is not evidence. It's just personal experience.

Have you ever actually listened to the SGU podcast, or did you just come to this forum to express your distrust of autonomous cars?
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4776
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1151 on: February 17, 2017, 01:41:06 PM »
Toyota, GM and Lyft want nationwide rules for self-driving cars

Quote
The "patchwork" of state regulations is limiting development, they say.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/17/toyota-gm-and-lyft-want-nationwide-rules-for-self-driving-cars/
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline Simon Jester

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1952
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1152 on: February 17, 2017, 03:05:20 PM »
anecdotes are not good evidence. You can't take a single case and generalize. It's not valid.

Depending on what is being looked at, often times anecdotes are the only evidence.   

So to suggest that it is the opposite of evidence is just plain silly.

Hey phooey

Im just curious, I never see you posing in other threads, is this thread your only interest on this site and if so why?
“Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4218
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1153 on: February 17, 2017, 05:38:42 PM »
anecdotes are not good evidence. You can't take a single case and generalize. It's not valid.

Depending on what is being looked at, often times anecdotes are the only evidence.   

So to suggest that it is the opposite of evidence is just plain silly.

Hey phooey

Im just curious, I never see you posing in other threads, is this thread your only interest on this site and if so why?

Based on what he said in the post quoted here, I think that Phooey has never listened to the SGU podcast, that he found out that there was a discussion on self-driving cars here, and enrolled on the site just to express his dislike of self-driving technology. His user name seems to be his response to the topic of this thread.

If I wanted to be uncharitable, I'd speculate that he loves cars but is not yet old enough to drive, and is afraid that if autonomous cars become a reality, he may never get the chance. (Personally, I'd have been delighted if my first car and all subsequent ones had been self-driving and I'd never needed to drive myself. The Zap Xebra and the Roadster have been fun to drive, but long trips are tedious, and I'd gladly give up the fun of driving the Roadster in order to not have to drive any more. If I had about ten times as much money as I do, I'd hire a chauffeur and never have to drive again.)

ETA: But unlike some, I do not consider him a troll. A troll is someone who makes inflammatory posts just to elicit angry replies. I think that Phooey truly opposes autonomous car technology and believes the stuff he says, even though much of it is irrational.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 05:41:16 PM by daniel1948 »
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1154 on: February 18, 2017, 02:37:34 AM »
Just to note, phooey's first comments are about podcast episode #554.

 

personate-rain