Author Topic: Self-Driving Cars  (Read 48052 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1215 on: April 23, 2017, 12:29:23 PM »
Yet he doesn't correct us.
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 arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1216 on: April 23, 2017, 08:56:50 PM »
My guess is that Phooey is 15 years old and is terrified that by the time he is old enough to drive, he won't be allowed to because all cars will be autonomous. He's never claimed to be an adult. The fact that new technology takes time to become ubiquitous, and there will be a long lag between the first availability of autonomous cars and the disappearance of human-driven cars means that his fear is unfounded.

"Sad, really, since he was relatively polite until fairly recently. "

So sad...

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible for a 15-year old to be polite.

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1217 on: April 23, 2017, 10:46:17 PM »
My guess is that Phooey is 15 years old and is terrified that by the time he is old enough to drive, he won't be allowed to because all cars will be autonomous. He's never claimed to be an adult. The fact that new technology takes time to become ubiquitous, and there will be a long lag between the first availability of autonomous cars and the disappearance of human-driven cars means that his fear is unfounded.

"Sad, really, since he was relatively polite until fairly recently. "

So sad...

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible for a 15-year old to be polite.

I am sure your mother is a lovely person.

But what about flying cars? 

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1218 on: April 24, 2017, 01:28:25 AM »
My guess is that Phooey is 15 years old and is terrified that by the time he is old enough to drive, he won't be allowed to because all cars will be autonomous. He's never claimed to be an adult. The fact that new technology takes time to become ubiquitous, and there will be a long lag between the first availability of autonomous cars and the disappearance of human-driven cars means that his fear is unfounded.

"Sad, really, since he was relatively polite until fairly recently. "

So sad...

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible for a 15-year old to be polite.

I am sure your mother is a lovely person.

But what about flying cars?
What about them? We've had them for years, but they're not practical for most people to own and use regularly. Once self-driving technology is mature enough, I'm sure it will be applied to flying cars and the cost of ownership will come down. A bit.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1219 on: June 25, 2017, 10:04:33 PM »
Australia presents unique problems for driverless cars.

Quote
Driverless car makers are discovering a unique problem as they begin to test the vehicles in Australia.

It turns out the unusual way that kangaroos move completely throws off the car's animal detection system.

"We've noticed with the kangaroo being in mid-flight ... when it's in the air it actually looks like it's further away, then it lands and it looks closer," Volvo Australia's technical manager David Pickett said.

Because the cars use the ground as a reference point, they become confused by a hopping kangaroo, unable to determine how far away it is.

Quote
In addition to difficulties detecting roos, the cars will need to be adjusted for a few other Australian quirks before they are rolled out.

Australian Driverless Vehicle Initiative executive director Rita Excell said Australia's many unsealed roads, its unmarked highways, and the huge road trains that barrel down regional highways were among the challenges.

    "There are some things you don't find in other countries. If you've got a car passing something like [a road train], it needs to understand what that is," Ms Excell said.

But while regional Australia's road infrastructure may need some work to be driverless car-ready, Ms Excell said Australia was well positioned to be one of the first places for the vehicles.

"The maturity is much further along than maybe is publicly aware," she said.

Source: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-24/driverless-cars-in-australia-face-challenge-of-roo-problem/8574816

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1220 on: June 26, 2017, 02:11:10 AM »
An Australian road train for those that haven't heard of them before:



Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1221 on: June 26, 2017, 09:24:20 AM »
Australia presents unique problems for driverless cars. <...snip...>

Interesting. Of course, these are just two of the many challenges that face driverless cars. That's why we can't buy them yet. There's going to be a transition period when the cars mostly drive themselves, but you still have to be in the driver's seat, ready to take over. I suspect that kangaroos and road trains will be easier to solve than some of the others.
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 phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1222 on: June 29, 2017, 07:28:25 AM »
Australia presents unique problems for driverless cars. <...snip...>

Interesting. Of course, these are just two of the many challenges that face driverless cars. That's why we can't buy them yet. There's going to be a transition period when the cars mostly drive themselves, but you still have to be in the driver's seat, ready to take over. I suspect that kangaroos and road trains will be easier to solve than some of the others.

You have continually claimed that this is going to be a feasible way to drive a car, with ones hands hovered over the steering wheel just waiting in case the computer throws in the towel.  That would be a totally pointless driving experience.  You don't think people would become drowsy doing that?  Distracted?  Anxious waiting?  "Lookout, there's a kangaroo! Oh shit you better do something!! Oh no sorry, I still got this, go back to sleep..." 

Right. 

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1223 on: June 29, 2017, 10:43:23 AM »
Australia presents unique problems for driverless cars. <...snip...>

Interesting. Of course, these are just two of the many challenges that face driverless cars. That's why we can't buy them yet. There's going to be a transition period when the cars mostly drive themselves, but you still have to be in the driver's seat, ready to take over. I suspect that kangaroos and road trains will be easier to solve than some of the others.

You have continually claimed that this is going to be a feasible way to drive a car, with ones hands hovered over the steering wheel just waiting in case the computer throws in the towel.  That would be a totally pointless driving experience.  You don't think people would become drowsy doing that?  Distracted?  Anxious waiting?  "Lookout, there's a kangaroo! Oh shit you better do something!! Oh no sorry, I still got this, go back to sleep..." 

Right. 

What I have said and continue to say is that progress is gradual. We're not going from a 1958 Oldsmobile to a totally autonomous car overnight. Right now, today, you can buy cars from several manufacturers that have such technologies as adaptive cruise control, lane-change assist, emergency braking, self-parking, and summoning. Each of these technologies makes the car safer than cars without them.

It's like the evolution-deniers who claim that a half-formed eye would be useless, when in fact we have examples of animals with less-than-fully-formed eyes which are extremely useful to the animal.

At every stage, technology makes the cars safer. There are still problems that remain to be solved (which is why we cannot buy fully self-driving cars today) and kangaroos are one such problem.

Your mistake is in assuming that technology will never progress from where it is today. And your other mistake is in thinking that a car must be capable of making moral decisions in order to have fewer accidents. You are mistaken on both counts. We will never be driving with our hands hovering over the wheel ready to grab it when the computer screams at us. We will be doing the driving, while the computer is ready to take control when an emergency presents. Right up until the time that the computer is fully able to drive. As long as you are in the driver's seat behind the wheel, your hands will be on the wheel doing the driving. After that, you'll be able to lie down in the back and take a nap, and when the car reaches an area that the computer cannot handle, it will pull off and stop safely, and then wake you up and tell you to take over.

And computers will make mistakes, and there will be accidents and deaths. And as long as there are fewer deaths than would be caused by human drivers, it's an improvement. Today we accept that 40,000 people die in traffic accidents per year in the U.S. If autonomous cars reduce that number to 4,000 they'll have more than justified themselves. You seem to feel that it's better for people to kill 40,000 than for computers to kill 4,000. You are alone in holding this opinion.
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 bimble

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1224 on: June 29, 2017, 05:15:56 PM »
On the other hand... wild kangaroos aren't that much of a problem anywhere other than Australia.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1225 on: June 29, 2017, 05:26:06 PM »
Australia presents unique problems for driverless cars. <...snip...>

Interesting. Of course, these are just two of the many challenges that face driverless cars. That's why we can't buy them yet. There's going to be a transition period when the cars mostly drive themselves, but you still have to be in the driver's seat, ready to take over. I suspect that kangaroos and road trains will be easier to solve than some of the others.

You have continually claimed that this is going to be a feasible way to drive a car, with ones hands hovered over the steering wheel just waiting in case the computer throws in the towel.  That would be a totally pointless driving experience.  You don't think people would become drowsy doing that?  Distracted?  Anxious waiting?  "Lookout, there's a kangaroo! Oh shit you better do something!! Oh no sorry, I still got this, go back to sleep..." 

Right.

Ah, so you didn't actually read the article then. Good show.

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1226 on: July 06, 2017, 08:16:41 AM »
Australia presents unique problems for driverless cars. <...snip...>

Interesting. Of course, these are just two of the many challenges that face driverless cars. That's why we can't buy them yet. There's going to be a transition period when the cars mostly drive themselves, but you still have to be in the driver's seat, ready to take over. I suspect that kangaroos and road trains will be easier to solve than some of the others.

You have continually claimed that this is going to be a feasible way to drive a car, with ones hands hovered over the steering wheel just waiting in case the computer throws in the towel.  That would be a totally pointless driving experience.  You don't think people would become drowsy doing that?  Distracted?  Anxious waiting?  "Lookout, there's a kangaroo! Oh shit you better do something!! Oh no sorry, I still got this, go back to sleep..." 

Right. 

What I have said and continue to say is that progress is gradual. We're not going from a 1958 Oldsmobile to a totally autonomous car overnight. Right now, today, you can buy cars from several manufacturers that have such technologies as adaptive cruise control, lane-change assist, emergency braking, self-parking, and summoning. Each of these technologies makes the car safer than cars without them.

It's like the evolution-deniers who claim that a half-formed eye would be useless, when in fact we have examples of animals with less-than-fully-formed eyes which are extremely useful to the animal.

At every stage, technology makes the cars safer. There are still problems that remain to be solved (which is why we cannot buy fully self-driving cars today) and kangaroos are one such problem.

Your mistake is in assuming that technology will never progress from where it is today. And your other mistake is in thinking that a car must be capable of making moral decisions in order to have fewer accidents. You are mistaken on both counts. We will never be driving with our hands hovering over the wheel ready to grab it when the computer screams at us. We will be doing the driving, while the computer is ready to take control when an emergency presents. Right up until the time that the computer is fully able to drive. As long as you are in the driver's seat behind the wheel, your hands will be on the wheel doing the driving. After that, you'll be able to lie down in the back and take a nap, and when the car reaches an area that the computer cannot handle, it will pull off and stop safely, and then wake you up and tell you to take over.

And computers will make mistakes, and there will be accidents and deaths. And as long as there are fewer deaths than would be caused by human drivers, it's an improvement. Today we accept that 40,000 people die in traffic accidents per year in the U.S. If autonomous cars reduce that number to 4,000 they'll have more than justified themselves. You seem to feel that it's better for people to kill 40,000 than for computers to kill 4,000. You are alone in holding this opinion.

This is funny.  When it gets to an area where the computer can't handle it, it will pull over and tell you take over.  Exquisite.

"Excuse sleeping person, Al here.  Sorry to disturb you.  But I believe there may be some Kangaroos up ahead.  And sometimes they have a nasty tendency to jump in front of cars at the last minute when they see headlights.  I think you better be responsible if that happens, because I haven't been programmed for this shit.  I know I know, no need to argue with me, I realize this is Cleveland Ohio, but I did see a zoo sign a little while back. Besides, there also might be kids with balloons. Listen, I really can't help it if you are a shitty driver and fairly buzzed on that last Colt45, I really do have to go now.  Please don't touch that button.  No please don't touch that button..." 

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1227 on: July 06, 2017, 09:32:23 AM »
This is funny.  When it gets to an area where the computer can't handle it, it will pull over and tell you take over.  Exquisite.

"Excuse sleeping person, Al here.  Sorry to disturb you.  But I believe there may be some Kangaroos up ahead.  And sometimes they have a nasty tendency to jump in front of cars at the last minute when they see headlights.  I think you better be responsible if that happens, because I haven't been programmed for this shit.  I know I know, no need to argue with me, I realize this is Cleveland Ohio, but I did see a zoo sign a little while back. Besides, there also might be kids with balloons. Listen, I really can't help it if you are a shitty driver and fairly buzzed on that last Colt45, I really do have to go now.  Please don't touch that button.  No please don't touch that button..." 

Same mistake you make repeatedly: Assuming that full computer control will be a switch someone throws: One day the computer doesn't exist, the next day it's controlling everything. The advent of autonomous cars will come gradually. Right now, the computer can make you safer by providing some added information and features. Soon the computer will be able to drive under some very limited conditions. Gradually, the conditions the computer can handle will expand and the conditions it cannot will decline, until finally there are no controls for a human driver.

It happens gradually. I'm not sure why you cannot understand that. Maybe for the same reason that you seem to think that 35,000 traffic deaths a year is acceptable if humans are driving, but 5,000 deaths a year would not be acceptable if computers were driving.
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 Morvis13

  • Big Ol' Goober
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 22295
  • Natural Source of Paranoia
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1228 on: July 06, 2017, 09:57:48 AM »
I thought the number of traffic deaths was higher. Like 3,000/day.

At one point we didn't have power steering. At one point we didn't have Automated braking. At one point we didn't have cruise control. at one point we didn't have lane assist. At one point we didn't have forward collision detection. These all happen gradually. I don't we why we can't evolve the car to get better at driving.
Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Morvis' Law: Anything that does go wrong is my fault.

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Reply #1229 on: July 06, 2017, 09:58:15 AM »
Reflexive and repetitive naysaying is just tedious.
"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

 

personate-rain