[QUOTE=megafat;48830374]Right man. No point in using something if it isn't radical or gnarly.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the article?
It clearly states it has its uses.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48830384]Did you read the article?
It clearly states it has its uses.[/QUOTE]
Did you read my post?
I was clearly making fun of the fact the guy said it was boring.
[quote]
But the Google car panicked, hitting the brakes for an emergency stop.
Luckily, there was nobody behind us, or I'm sure they'd have gone into the back of us. Google's engineer told me that if a car had been right behind us it wouldn't have stopped so suddenly.
But suppose the jogger had been a danger? Would the car have ploughed into him rather than causing a crash from behind? It's the classic ethical dilemma that has kept psychologists debating for centuries.
[/quote]
Welp, seems like here we have the reason why driverless cars do happen to show up in quite a few accidents, but never at fault. (plowing into someone from behind pretty much always makes you at fault).
Seems like it behaves irrationally at times, possibly more so than a human driver.
I don't like driverless cars because I get car sick easily unless I'm driving.
I can't use phones or laptops and I can't read if the car is moving. I must keep my eyes on the road or I get nausea. So with a driverless car I would just be sitting there bored out of my mind. And I just like driving, it's fun.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
