I don't understand the point of this article. It's designed to get you from A to B safely. What thrills does it need?
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;48808566]I don't understand the point of this article. It's designed to get you from A to B safely. What thrills does it need?[/QUOTE]
if anything, being boring is kinda what you want, does anyone really want an "exciting" ride on an automated car of all things. :blaze:
Probably just shitting on it in any way they can, usual journalistic response when it comes to automation.
I have literally no clue what this BBC reporter was expecting???
Did you guys read it all or just the headline
[quote]It won't ever cut corners, or do that tiny burst of speed to nip through the lights as they change. When the lights do go green, it pauses for a second before pulling away, just in case.
It's a Sunday driver, every day of the week.
That, obviously, is a good thing. It's far safer than a human. The brief delay before pulling away on a green light is intentional - a huge proportion of accidents at traffic lights happen in that first moment, as a car whizzes through a red light and clatters into anyone who's pulled away promptly.
But just because it's safe doesn't meant it won't be massively frustrating - particularly if you're desperate to get to work or in any other kind of hurry that required a bit of (legal) urgency on the road.
That's a terrible complaint, isn't it? The impeccable standards are a sign the technology is really quite magnificent.
But like dating someone who is just "too nice", the Google car will start to grate on you a bit.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Zergeant;48808639]Probably just shitting on it in any way they can, usual journalistic response when it comes to automation.[/QUOTE]
[quote]And later that evening, as I snaked my way back to San Francisco on the four-to-five lane wide Interstate 880, I wished it was the Google car driving me home.[/quote]
I read it all. It still seems like a strange expectation for a self driving car to risk speeding through lights, immediately hit the gas on green, etc.
These things wouldn't last five minutes in Massachusetts. Imagine obeying the speed limit when there aren't even any cops around. I bet this thing doesn't even try to pass slow drivers.
Fair points honestly. I feel like these might be better, for a start, for elderly/disabled/high risk drivers. If everyone drove one of these in Vancouver the already disgusting congestion would turn into a nightmare that you can't wake up from :v:
This article confirms it.
I'll never buy a driverless car until I'm disabled or extremely old. But my bloodline has aged well in the past, so I don't expect to.
For the time being, it is for people who don't want / can't drive for themselves.
I imagine it being very nice for super long trips.
[QUOTE=Elspin;48810008]Fair points honestly. I feel like these might be better, for a start, for elderly/disabled/high risk drivers. If everyone drove one of these in Vancouver the already disgusting congestion would turn into a nightmare that you can't wake up from :v:[/QUOTE]
If everyone drove these in Vancouver, there wouldn't be congestion to speak of. Congestion comes from people reacting to events that happen on the road. You can program it out.
The only boring thing I see here is this article
[QUOTE=woolio1;48810921]If everyone drove these in Vancouver, there wouldn't be congestion to speak of. Congestion comes from people reacting to events that happen on the road. You can program it out.[/QUOTE]
For the most part this is the case. Imagine no distracted drivers, no to very little accidents, and every vehicle reacting when it needs to. That'll clear up the most major causes of congestion.
I'd assume that once/if everyone drove driverless cars, they could sync up or whatever, and pull speeds like 80 or whatever without much risk. Right now it's important they play it safe because they have to deal with manually driven cars still on the roads.
if my car drove itself i wouldn't be paying any attention to the road so how exciting it is wouldn't really matter as much. if anything a smoother ride would make fucking around on my phone or laptop or taking a nap easier
i just want a car that can switch between the two
for times when i feel like driving and for times when i'm too tired/drunk/lazy to drive
[editline]2nd October 2015[/editline]
like fuck a self driving car would be great for my commute to uni i could just take a nap or franticly study or something
[QUOTE=woolio1;48810921]If everyone drove these in Vancouver, there wouldn't be congestion to speak of. Congestion comes from people reacting to events that happen on the road. You can program it out.[/QUOTE]
Easy mistake to think this if you haven't been to Vancouver, but there's no way the problems could be solved like this at all. A lot of it comes down to there being simply way too many vehicles trying to funnel through tiny bottlenecks (bridges, of course) and having everyone drive a lot more cautiously but consistently is doing nothing to help that. I mean, that's not to say the idea that congestion is only from goofy reactions isn't ridiculous to begin with but I'm just pointing out why specifically in Vancouver it's even more ridiculous. There's obviously situations where they'd help a lot, but it's like saying "alcohol is the only cause of car crashes" :v:
[QUOTE=woolio1;48810921]If everyone drove these in Vancouver, there wouldn't be congestion to speak of. Congestion comes from people reacting to events that happen on the road. You can program it out.[/QUOTE]
If most of the cars on the road are automated, the cars can start accelerating at the same instant when a light turns green, increasing throughput [I]massively[/I].
[QUOTE=Zergeant;48808639]Probably just shitting on it in any way they can, usual journalistic response when it comes to automation.[/QUOTE]
I once had one of our (female) family friends who was like 13 at the time try to convince me that it would be wrong to, if we had the option, replace coal miners with coal mining robots, because "jobs".
Like, no. It's literally one of the most dangerous (non-military) jobs still around, automating it should NOT bring ethical concerns. Just because women choose to avoid these jobs doesn't mean that preserving their lethality is desirable course of action when an alternative comes. It's literally one of the best examples of the theory of male disposability currently in practice IMO.
I'm assuming they had some kind of debate about this in school at some point and "jobs jobs jobs" took over the argument, as is typical.
It concerns me that they try to brainwash these kids into that kind of mentality.
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;48808566]I don't understand the point of this article. It's designed to get you from A to B safely. What thrills does it need?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zergeant;48808639]Probably just shitting on it in any way they can, usual journalistic response when it comes to automation.[/QUOTE]
Driverless cars aren't supposed to be exciting, that's the point. It's like nobody read past the headline, and even then I knew exactly what the headline meant as soon as I read it. When you're talking about something as complex as a driverless car, that has to deal with something as unpredictable as cars on the road and pedestrians on the side of it, that's a hell of a compliment. Even the first sentence in the article sums it up.
[quote]The biggest compliment you could possibly give the Google driverless car team is that experiencing their groundbreaking product feels utterly unremarkable.[/quote]
He's completely right. The fact that it works exactly as it's supposed to and works so well means that there's nothing exciting to say about, which is a [I]good[/I] thing. Hell, even later in the article he writes:
[quote]And later that evening, as I snaked my way back to San Francisco on the four-to-five lane wide Interstate 880, I wished it was the Google car driving me home.[/quote]
Wait, so you're saying it [I]doesn't[/I] do sick burnouts? What a piece of shit!
The whole point of a driverless car is to sit and wait to get from A to B while you can do other stuff on your notebook/smartthing.
This is essentially the same as complaining about how elevators are boring. Grow up.
just get out your 3ds or phone you fucking idiot.
[editline]4th October 2015[/editline]
like of fucking course it's going to be boring if you don't do shit in it.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;48827395]just get out your 3ds or phone you fucking idiot.
[editline]4th October 2015[/editline]
like of fucking course it's going to be boring if you don't do shit in it.[/QUOTE]
That's illegal, you have to "be seated in the driver’s seat, monitoring the safe operation of the autonomous vehicle, and capable of taking over immediate manual control of the autonomous vehicle in the event of an autonomous technology failure or other emergency" under [url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1298]California state law[/url] (and it's the same pretty much everywhere that has passed laws to allow autonomous vehicles)
[QUOTE=smurfy;48827963]That's illegal, you have to "be seated in the driver’s seat, monitoring the safe operation of the autonomous vehicle, and capable of taking over immediate manual control of the autonomous vehicle in the event of an autonomous technology failure or other emergency" under [url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1298]California state law[/url] (and it's the same pretty much everywhere that has passed laws to allow autonomous vehicles)[/QUOTE]
Just for now, at least. I'm sure once the technology has a chance to prove itself, those laws will relax.
[QUOTE=Elspin;48814666]Easy mistake to think this if you haven't been to Vancouver, but there's no way the problems could be solved like this at all. A lot of it comes down to there being simply way too many vehicles trying to funnel through tiny bottlenecks (bridges, of course) and having everyone drive a lot more cautiously but consistently is doing nothing to help that. I mean, that's not to say the idea that congestion is only from goofy reactions isn't ridiculous to begin with but I'm just pointing out why specifically in Vancouver it's even more ridiculous. There's obviously situations where they'd help a lot, but it's like saying "alcohol is the only cause of car crashes" :v:[/QUOTE]
Nice thing about automated cars is you'll be able to optimize pretty much all of those problems. Cars will be able to switch lanes and go through intersections in perfect sync, or find optimal detours around bottlenecks that speed up the overall flow of traffic. We're just not going to see that until we reach a critical mass of automated cars on the road.
[QUOTE=Pythagoras64;48829188]Just for now, at least. I'm sure once the technology has a chance to prove itself, those laws will relax.[/QUOTE]
Depends on if they're there to solve the problem of "who's at fault in a driverless car crash" or not. If they want you to take control of the car in case of a problem so you're responsible for any crashes then of course those laws may never leave
[QUOTE]Nice thing about automated cars is you'll be able to optimize pretty much all of those problems. Cars will be able to switch lanes and go through intersections in perfect sync, or find optimal detours around bottlenecks that speed up the overall flow of traffic. We're just not going to see that until we reach a critical mass of automated cars on the road.[/QUOTE]
I mean, some GPS services already show you areas of massive traffic but honestly Vancouver has two bridges and during peak traffic hours they're pretty much backed up to the moon so you're pretty boned if you need to get from Downtown to West Van during those hours anyhow unless you have a boat, helicopter, or other means of crossing the ocean the number of alternate routes is 0.
Pictured: one of only 2 bridges in Vancouver during peak hours
[img]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/932423/images/r-VANCOUVER-TRAFFIC-large570.jpg[/img]
Of course, the majority of cities don't face this problem so yeah there's a lot driverless cars could do there.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48810054]This article confirms it.
I'll never buy a driverless car until I'm disabled or extremely old. But my bloodline has aged well in the past, so I don't expect to.[/QUOTE]
Hah, getting dumbed to hell over personal preferences.
If someone wants a driverless car go and buy it! I'm not stopping you. If you want one you should probably get one. If I get seriously ill or unfit to drive I myself would get one, but I'm not. I'm biased, though, because I'm a classic car fan. [1920's - 1980's]
I know that "its more dangerous dipshit" and all that, but again, I don't plan on speeding to hell and back. I just like the steering wheel in my hands and my foot on the accelerator. "What will you be saying when you've slammed into someone?" you may ask, well considering I plan on damn well following road rules, so while I can't predict the future, I can tell you I plan on taking great caution to not be the one at fault.
In a nutshell: I don't hate driverless cars, but they're simply not for me right now. Will they ever be? Possibly, possibly not. But time will very easily tell that.
Oh, and as a side thought: Utopian speeds of 100 MPH + on parkways and near cities will never happen.
Let me emphasize this: Inner city speed limits will never increase. Pedestrians are the priority there. Highways would get faster, though.
[quote]Google's driverless car is brilliant but so boring[/quote]
Right man. No point in using something if it isn't radical or gnarly.
Was the driverless car ever given a pricetag?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
