Google’s Self-Driving Cars Are Ready for the Road.
131 replies, posted
[QUOTE]It will also cap their speed at 25 mph[/QUOTE]
Yeah with that speed limit these cars will get incredibly unpopular, incredibly fast.
I'm more in favor of cars that have autonomous cruise control. I don't want the car doing all the work. It want it to be a companion that can pick up the load for me when I'm distracted or intoxicated or just lazy. I want to be able to drive to the front door if a building, press a button on my FOB, and have the car drive off to park until I tell it to pick me up.
[QUOTE=Twistai;47731362]Not that much different? That's half the speed limit.[/QUOTE]
Km/h =/= mph
[editline]15th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;47731844]The 25mph cap just seems too low. That's school zone speed when the lights are flashing. And even SOME school zones are 30mph. I'd say raise the cap to 30.[/QUOTE]
What kind of fucking shit school zones do you have? Ours are 20mph when it's a school zone and city speed limit is 30mph, except downtown where it becomes 20mph.
I wanna get this car, even if the roads here where I live vary from newly paved, to slightly worn, to either dirt roads or pothole central.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47731787]Why does a car need to look "aggressive"?[/QUOTE]
I drive a VW golf, and even with how bulbous that thing is, really rounded designs like this are just off putting and ugly.
Cars don't need to look like this, they can be less ugly.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47731787]Why does a car need to look "aggressive"?[/QUOTE]
Not every car needs to be aggressive, but they do need to not look like a clown car to be accepted.
Y'know, we used to have slow moving self-driving cars. They were called horses.
[QUOTE=code_gs;47731342]But how do you activate manual override in-case the car has a deathwish?[/QUOTE]
Hi everyone, remember when we warned about lack of driver input for fun and recreational driving? They beat us to the punch.
Sounds great for a conceptual Taxi service, drone cars that just drive you where you want to go.
Its supposed to be a downtown taxi not a consumer car.
[QUOTE=Wormy;47732512]I wonder if EU will allow self-driving cars [B]if[/B] this turns out to be a huge success.[/QUOTE]
Various countries inside the eu already do.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47732585]If a self-driving car hits a pedestrian, who is responsible?
I know they have technology to prevent that, but nothing is 100 percent perfect all the time.[/QUOTE]
It depends where the fault was that caused the accident to my understanding. So, if the software failed to take a reasonable action to avoid the accident, then the developers of the software are at fault.
Also, if all of that sensor data is being recorded proving who is at fault in accidents might be a whole lot easier.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47732585]If a self-driving car hits a pedestrian, who is responsible?
I know they have technology to prevent that, but nothing is 100 percent perfect all the time.[/QUOTE]
It's a machine full of cameras, most likely if it hit a pedestrian, it would be the fault of the pedestrian, and a driverless car or not, it wouldn't be able to have avoided the pedestrian. I assume it has full 360 cameras, so it would be pretty easy to see who's at fault if something happens.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47732585]If a self-driving car hits a pedestrian, who is responsible?
I know they have technology to prevent that, but nothing is 100 percent perfect all the time.[/QUOTE]
For the time being, all cars need a steering wheel and breaks and stuff, so i assume until they legally figure that out how to do without, its gonna be the Driver.
When that wouldn't be the case anymore, i assume it would be the people who made the car, since it would be pretty silly to be held accountable for something you literally have no control over.
Right now if all of a sudden your breaks would stop working, and you'd drive into somebody, you can generally file a liability claim with the car manufacturer.
[QUOTE=Cold;47732644]For the time being, all cars need a steering wheel and breaks and stuff, so i assume until they legally figure that out how to do without, its gonna be the Driver.
When that wouldn't be the case anymore, i assume it would be the people who made the car, since it would be pretty silly to be held accountable for something you literally have no control over.
Right now if all of a sudden your breaks would stop working, and you'd drive into somebody, you can generally file a liability claim with the car manufacturer.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that the car is driving itself, including breaking and such? Like, the person in the driver's seat is just sitting there.
Or are you saying that the very possibility for the driver to take control of the vehicle would put them at fault, which is ridiculous because then the driver, instead of the pedestrian, is being held responsible for something they have no control over (provided the driver wasn't in control of the vehicle in any way that led to the accident).
Ideally, the car can record all of information needed to make a determination including what inputs the driver made (if any) and thus provide evidence as to if the driver had a part to play in the accident.
Did they work out a way to make it effectively recognise hand signals (from police and traffic controllers) and what not?
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47733036]You do realize that the car is driving itself, including breaking and such? Like, the person in the driver's seat is just sitting there.
Or are you saying that the very possibility for the driver to take control of the vehicle would put them at fault, which is ridiculous because then the driver, instead of the pedestrian, is being held responsible for something they have no control over (provided the driver wasn't in control of the vehicle in any way that led to the accident).
Ideally, the car can record all of information needed to make a determination including what inputs the driver made (if any) and thus provide evidence as to if the driver had a part to play in the accident.[/QUOTE]
You're expected to take over control before it hits something, that's the reason why it still has a break and steering wheel, and you need a licensed driver behind the wheel.
You have control over it, if you want to car to stop you press the break and it stops.
Maybe is stupid to expect that from humans, to react to something once every 1000 hours, but i've never driven a self driving car, i wouldn't know. But thats most likely how its going to work out legally.
[QUOTE=shauntp;47733389]Did they work out a way to make it effectively recognise hand signals (from police and traffic controllers) and what not?[/QUOTE]
Is it smart enough to recognize that if the streetlight is powered off or blinking red it needs to treat the intersection as a four way stop?
[QUOTE=lavacano;47733663]Is it smart enough to recognize that if the streetlight is powered off or blinking red it needs to treat the intersection as a four way stop?[/QUOTE]
That's a fairly common traffic situation so probably.
[QUOTE=Billy2600;47732295]Y'know, we used to have slow moving self-driving cars. They were called horses.[/QUOTE]
Horses must have been a lot smarter back in the day.
[QUOTE=Billy2600;47732295]Y'know, we used to have slow moving self-driving cars. They were called horses.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there was ever a point in history where you could just say "hey horse, go to the post office" and expect him to get you there on his own.
I guess I'm to 'Merican, but I don't think I'll ever get a self-driving car. I just love driving too much.
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;47733751]I don't think there was ever a point in history where you could just say "hey horse, go to the post office" and expect him to get you there on his own.[/QUOTE]
They also moved a lot slower, and shat all over the street.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47731619]As much as I love the concept, it looks absolutely AWFUL
maybe it would fit in in Japan or something, but it looks way too cutesy to do well in the US.
[t]http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2015/05/15/google_self_driving_car_prototypes_why_you_won_t_see_them_on_your_street/google_driverless_small.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg[/t]
[editline]15th May 2015[/editline]
a fucking smart car looks more aggressive than this thing[/QUOTE]
People are going to flip these things all over for the hell of it.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47733833]also there were no streets[/QUOTE]
but plenty of shat
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47732585]If a self-driving car hits a pedestrian, who is responsible?
I know they have technology to prevent that, but nothing is 100 percent perfect all the time.[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of the morality question my dad and co-workers posed.
The self-driving car is about to collide with a vehicle and cannot stop in time. The only way to avoid crashing is to swerve to one side. However, on one side is a cyclist with no helmet on, and on the other is a cyclist with a helmet.
So does the car crash into the other car, hit the cyclist with a helmet since they're more likely to survive, or hit the cyclist without the helmet to punish them for it.
Our conclusion was the car self-destructs
25mph is also really slow. That's residential speed, but most areas where I am are minimum 35mph. And it's already really fucking annoying to be behind people doing less then the speed limit. No one is going to be happy behind one of those.
[QUOTE=Gunner th;47734068]Reminds me of the morality question my dad and co-workers posed.
The self-driving car is about to collide with a vehicle and cannot stop in time. The only way to avoid crashing is to swerve to one side. However, on one side is a cyclist with no helmet on, and on the other is a cyclist with a helmet.
So does the car crash into the other car, hit the cyclist with a helmet since they're more likely to survive, or hit the cyclist without the helmet to punish them for it.
Our conclusion was the car self-destructs[/QUOTE]
The car has no concept of morality; whichever option it chooses will be based on which action it thinks is the "best" from a purely rational standpoint (with the information it has available to it).
[QUOTE=Gunner th;47734068]Reminds me of the morality question my dad and co-workers posed.
The self-driving car is about to collide with a vehicle and cannot stop in time. The only way to avoid crashing is to swerve to one side. However, on one side is a cyclist with no helmet on, and on the other is a cyclist with a helmet.
So does the car crash into the other car, hit the cyclist with a helmet since they're more likely to survive, or hit the cyclist without the helmet to punish them for it.[/QUOTE]
uh, it hits the vehicle, because a person inside a car is much safer in a collision than a person who is only on a bicycle?
How does it go with potholes?
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;47734153]uh, it hits the vehicle, because a person inside a car is much safer in a collision than a person who is only on a bicycle?[/QUOTE]
And I bet most people would choose to swerve in a random direction instead to avoid the car, hitting a biker instead. Which only strengthens the argument that computers are better at split second decisions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.