I like how it parks perfectly in the box where it started from.
I'm still never going to buy a car that lets the computer take control of the steering wheel under any circumstances. Self parking, self driving, any of it is wrong in my book.
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;46293786]I'm still never going to buy a car that lets the computer take control of the steering wheel under any circumstances. Self parking, self driving, any of it is wrong in my book.[/QUOTE]
Imagine thinking that you're better at operating a vehicle, have better senses, faster reaction times and are more attentive than [I]a machine.[/I]
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;46293811]Imagine thinking that you're better at operating a vehicle, have better senses, faster reaction times and are more attentive than [I]a machine.[/I][/QUOTE]
For repetitive, menial tasks you simply can't beat a machine. For tasks that aren't 100% predictable however, humans are better.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;46293811]Imagine thinking that you're better at operating a vehicle, have better senses, faster reaction times and are more attentive than [I]a machine.[/I][/QUOTE]
It was built specifically to run this track.
"The RS7 used a combination of cameras, laser scanners, GPS location data, radio transmissions and radar sensors to guide itself around the track, with the data processed by computing equipment that filled its boot."
The article also raises a good concern I had while watching it, Its not going to be viable to have self driving cars until every car is such a way, a computer can't calculate for other human drivers errors in our day and age yet. I don't think we'll be seeing consumer use of this for a while
A cameo of David Hasselhoff would have been nice, where he congratulates the car for the speed record
[IMG]http://www2.b3ta.com/fp-archive/host/8791479-1.gif[/IMG]
"Way to go, pal!"
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;46293828]For repetitive, menial tasks you simply can't beat a machine. For tasks that aren't 100% predictable however, humans are better.[/QUOTE]
The google driverless cars have accumulated over 700,000 driverless road miles. The only accident was one of them being rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light.
Ok so there was another crash, but [B]the car was being driven manually at the time.[/B]
[editline]21st October 2014[/editline]
Believe me soon there are going to be riots in the streets with people protesting about insurance companies unfairly stereotyping human drivers.
[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;46293856]The article also raises a good concern I had while watching it, Its not going to be viable to have self driving cars until every car is such a way, a computer can't calculate for other human drivers errors in our day and age yet. I don't think we'll be seeing consumer use of this for a while[/QUOTE]
That just simply isn't true. Google's driverless car has already [URL="http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-latest-chapter-for-self-driving-car.html"]driven over 700,000 miles by itself[/URL] and has only been involved in one accident during this period, which was the result of being rear ended whilst stopped at a traffic light. Given this kind of progress it's not unlikely that we'll start seeing consumer available self-driving vehicles within the next decade.
[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;46293856]
, a human can't calculate for other human drivers errors better than a computer in our day and age yet I don't think we'll be seeing consumer use of this for a while[/QUOTE]
A few typos corrected
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;46293786]I'm still never going to buy a car that lets the computer take control of the steering wheel under any circumstances. Self parking, self driving, any of it is wrong in my book.[/QUOTE]
Fuck I would love to have both. Sometimes such as for long, boring drives or just small errands I wouldn't mind just having my car drive me there. Though I would still want to drive it myself often
[QUOTE=Wiggles;46294061]That just simply isn't true. Google's driverless car has already [URL="http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-latest-chapter-for-self-driving-car.html"]driven over 700,000 miles by itself[/URL] and has only been involved in one accident during this period, which was the result of being rear ended whilst stopped at a traffic light. Given this kind of progress it's not unlikely that we'll start seeing consumer available self-driving vehicles within the next decade.[/QUOTE]
Plenty of humans drive that far without getting into an accident, and as the guy said, it was the Human error that caused its accident, and so unless every car is automated, it won't make a difference safety wise.
I say until they're all driverless, they'll be slightly less safe because they drive like little old women drive a car
[QUOTE=TheTalon;46299368]Plenty of humans drive that far without getting into an accident, and as the guy said, it was the Human error that caused its accident, and so unless every car is automated, it won't make a difference safety wise.
I say until they're all driverless, they'll be slightly less safe because they drive like little old women drive a car[/QUOTE]
Have you ever even seen these things drive?
Its come a long way.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;46298788]Fuck I would love to have both. Sometimes such as for long, boring drives or just small errands I wouldn't mind just having my car drive me there. Though I would still want to drive it myself often[/QUOTE]
I want an automatic with a fake gear stick. You get to keep the ease of use and fuel efficiency, but still feel manly while accelerating.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;46300899]I want an automatic with a fake gear stick. You get to keep the ease of use and fuel efficiency, but still feel manly while accelerating.[/QUOTE]
But automatic cars have higher fuel consumption?
[QUOTE=Cold;46300916]But automatic cars have higher fuel consumption?[/QUOTE]
Maybe ten years ago, but automatics have taken over in efficiency. "Automatics consume more fuel" is just a myth perpetuated by manual purists and I myself wish it was the truth. But once again, you can't beat the machine.
If automated driving was a thing everyone had in their cars tomorrow, I'd still probably drive the car myself the majority of the time for the same reason I prefer to shift the car myself as well - I find driving to be fun and I like being able to have control over the the thing that makes me a "driver."
What I really like about this tech in terms of daily use however is automated parking and the ability to let the car take over if you're going to text or call someone. It'd also be pretty sweet if it gave intoxicated drivers the ability to sit as a passenger in their own car and get them where they need to go without putting other people at risk.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;46300936]Maybe ten years ago, but automatics have taken over in efficiency. "Automatics consume more fuel" is just a myth perpetuated by manual purists and I myself wish it was the truth. But once again, you can't beat the machine.[/QUOTE]
It depends on the technology behind the gear box. Higher end cars featuring dual-clutch boxes, or cars with single automated clutch autos often to get higher MPG as the computer can shift perfectly, and no power is lost in comparison to a manual clutch.
However, in cars with torque convertor based gearboxes, as most cheap cars have, you DO lose MPG as the torque convertor sucks power and no computer can compensate for that.
For instance, let's check out these 2012 release KIA Ce'eds, identical car, identical engine, only difference is one is auto and one is manual:
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/TfzpJkQ.jpg[/img_thumb]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.