Driverless Cars are Insane.

[coconut]

Remember those Samsung phone fires?

Anyway - yes, glitches in self driving cars will lead to fatalities. However, the number of fatalities will likely be far lower than human drivers cause. And unlike humans, the algorithms will be continuously improved.

Perhaps but do you want to be the one killed because that technology was flawed or corrupted?

Reliable high speed train service needs to be developed in this country. I've been on one in europe and it was very pleasant and efficient. An excellent value. Someone earlier mentioned using the interstate highways right of way which seems to be the easiest and most logical answer. I'd like to see lighter than air, dirigible service return when and where economically feasible. For highly urbanized areas light rail makes more sense with traditional taxi services. IMO fuel efficiency will determine future transportation options and driverless cars will never be as efficient as rail.

 

[Akrasian]

Perhaps but do you want to be the one killed because that technology was flawed or corrupted?

No, and I don't want to be killed because some kid is trying to impress his girlfriend and driving recklessly.

I don't want to be killed by somebody who stopped after work for "a beer" which led to multiple more.

I don't want to be killed because somebody is trying to find the perfect song on the radio instead of paying attention.

I don't want to be killed because they are just a bit too feeble to drive safely any longer.

I don't want to be killed because someone has to get somewhere fast, but a drug interaction has made them drowsy.

I don't want to be killed because somebody has worked too much overtime and is too tired to drive.

I don't want to be killed, period.

But there's already good reason to believe that self driving cars are much safer than the average driver - and they are continuously improving. Self driving cars are likely to be part of the way to reduce total emissions, too, to help against climate change.

I do think that improved mass transit - trains, buses, light rail, etc - is going to have to come. But self driving cars will help, by shuttling people from transit centers to where they actually want to be. Without the amazingly expensive waste of everybody having a car or two parked the majority of the time.

 

[coconut]

But there's already good reason to believe that self driving cars are much safer than the average driver - and they are continuously improving. Self driving cars are likely to be part of the way to reduce total emissions, too, to help against climate change.

I do think that improved mass transit - trains, buses, light rail, etc - is going to have to come. But self driving cars will help, by shuttling people from transit centers to where they actually want to be. Without the amazingly expensive waste of everybody having a car or two parked the majority of the time.

Safer how? I've read an article where the self driving car drove itself into a pedestrian. Cue the refrain- the technology is continuously improving.:blah:

Speaking of being safer, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are negative health effects from the onboard radar used by driverless cars. We'll see.

Electricity isn't air. Therefore it has to be generated which requires fuel. That also takes investment and infrastructure to supply the power. Lower emissions? No. Somewhere someone is getting those emissions. Wind and solar won't come close to supplying what would be needed. Nuclear and hydro sources are already fully exploited. That leaves coal, oil and natural gas. That means far greater emissions if that is really a concern instead of some pie in the sky human extinction in 12 years talking point?

Parked car a waste? How? It is there when I need it. No waste of time waiting for a ride. No cheetos, puke, piss, spilled slurpee or smelling like who knows what in my car either. I have a driveway which is paid for. I'll continue to use it for my car. :coach:

BTW 50 years ago the forward thinkers said we would be driving these by now.

 

[Akrasian]

Safer how? I've read an article where the self driving car drove itself into a pedestrian. Cue the refrain- the technology is continuously improving.:blah:

Yes, a self driving car hit a pedestrian in Tempe a few months back. Of course, the pedestrian stepped out from a road barricade without looking to see if a car was coming. It was dark, so the pedestrian ignored the headlights. Are you claiming that drivers never hit a pedestrian who step into the road suddenly? The self-driving car hitting somebody was a big story - because it happens so rarely. Joe Blow hitting a pedestrian gets no coverage because it is so common. In 2017 there were over 5000 pedestrians killed in the US by being hit by a car with a driver. Waymo, whose cars are very common in the Phoenix area, has tested over 5 million miles and had one accident which was their fault - they rear ended a bus at 2 miles per hour.

And yes, the technology is continuously improving. You can try to pretend that isn't the case, but it is absolutely true. All the companies have their own fake urban test areas, as well as getting data from anything that goes wrong IRL.

Speaking of being safer, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are negative health effects from the onboard radar used by driverless cars. We'll see.

Kind of reaching there, aren't you? Oh, fwiw, many if not most newer cars have onboard radar now, even for cars with drivers. Been happening for years.

Electricity isn't air. Therefore it has to be generated which requires fuel. That also takes investment and infrastructure to supply the power. Lower emissions? No. Somewhere someone is getting those emissions. Wind and solar won't come close to supplying what would be needed.

Heh. Not even close to accurate. Wind and solar both have a tremendous amount of room to grow. Solar, in particular, is growing more efficient by leaps and bounds. The panels which were installed a decade or so ago were 25% less effective than what is common now - and in the labs that can be more than doubled. But in any case, it's possible to cover far more surfaces with solar than are currently covered. There are a huge number of hilly or mountain passes that are great candidates for wind power, that aren't being used. So yes, no emission electric is highly possible. It will take a while. A beginning would be stopping subsidizing carbon fuels - when I lived in Oklahoma, there was a big controversy because of tax subsidies to oil producers - while they were eliminating subsidies for wind generators.

Parked car a waste? How? It is there when I need it. No waste of time waiting for a ride. No cheetos, puke, tick, spilled slurpee or smelling like who knows what in my car either. I have a driveway which is paid for. I'll continue to use it for my car.

Cars being used only a few hours a week - like most of them out there - means that instead of one vehicle being produced for 5-10 people, there are 5-10 produced. Huge amount of energy being wasted. A huge amount of income being wasted. And yes, sometimes you might have to wait. Of course, with less gridlock you will waste less time during your drive, and can do other things during it. And you won't be spending time at the gas station, or at the mechanics getting an oil change or your tires rotated, etc.

The thing is - the system is breaking down. Climate change is real, and actions need to be taken. Cities have longer and longer commute times because the roads can't handle all the private vehicles. Self driving cars and car share won't solve all the problems, and there will be annoyances. But it is the future, and it is coming fast.

 

[coconut]

Yes, a self driving car hit a pedestrian in Tempe a few months back. Of course, the pedestrian stepped out from a road barricade without looking to see if a car was coming. It was dark, so the pedestrian ignored the headlights. Are you claiming that drivers never hit a pedestrian who step into the road suddenly? The self-driving car hitting somebody was a big story - because it happens so rarely. Joe Blow hitting a pedestrian gets no coverage because it is so common. In 2017 there were over 5000 pedestrians killed in the US by being hit by a car with a driver. Waymo, whose cars are very common in the Phoenix area, has tested over 5 million miles and had one accident which was their fault - they rear ended a bus at 2 miles per hour.

And yes, the technology is continuously improving. You can try to pretend that isn't the case, but it is absolutely true. All the companies have their own fake urban test areas, as well as getting data from anything that goes wrong IRL.





Kind of reaching there, aren't you? Oh, fwiw, many if not most newer cars have onboard radar now, even for cars with drivers. Been happening for years.



Heh. Not even close to accurate. Wind and solar both have a tremendous amount of room to grow. Solar, in particular, is growing more efficient by leaps and bounds. The panels which were installed a decade or so ago were 25% less effective than what is common now - and in the labs that can be more than doubled. But in any case, it's possible to cover far more surfaces with solar than are currently covered. There are a huge number of hilly or mountain passes that are great candidates for wind power, that aren't being used. So yes, no emission electric is highly possible. It will take a while. A beginning would be stopping subsidizing carbon fuels - when I lived in Oklahoma, there was a big controversy because of tax subsidies to oil producers - while they were eliminating subsidies for wind generators.



Cars being used only a few hours a week - like most of them out there - means that instead of one vehicle being produced for 5-10 people, there are 5-10 produced. Huge amount of energy being wasted. A huge amount of income being wasted. And yes, sometimes you might have to wait. Of course, with less gridlock you will waste less time during your drive, and can do other things during it. And you won't be spending time at the gas station, or at the mechanics getting an oil change or your tires rotated, etc.

The thing is - the system is breaking down. Climate change is real, and actions need to be taken. Cities have longer and longer commute times because the roads can't handle all the private vehicles. Self driving cars and car share won't solve all the problems, and there will be annoyances. But it is the future, and it is coming fast.

Not reaching at all about onboard radar. Just look ahead. Pun intended.

Solar will never keep pace with energy requirements of the scale you propose. That is unless there are solar panel seeds to grow the panels without all the energy otherwise required to produce the raw materials and manufacture the panels in the real world. Don't get me wrong I like PV panels. I own some large ones. I also know what they can do and the costs associated. The efficiency has increased over the last 30 years and cost has dropped but there will always be clouds and night which greatly impact cost effectiveness. Then theres storage. Batteries are not there yet. Very expensive system.

Solar is still a no go even with government subsidies. But solar seeds would be a game changer.

Wind power is expensive and inefficient. Ask T. Boone Pickens. He has more than enough money to make it happen but he wouldn't risk his own money. And he couldn't get investors or financing.

Yes climate change is real. Spring. Summer. Fall. Winter. I remember when it was called Global Warming. I also remember when Global Cooling was the cause celebre. Why invest in driverless cars when your climate change is to end human existence in 12 years? What a conundrum.:banghead:

 

[Dieter the Brock]

Self-driving cars are coming. They are here now.

Rest assured though, nobody is gonna deprive you of your favorite gas guzzling ‘73 Ranchero.
It’s true. Nobody is taking your car away.

But just know the gas powered car will soon go the way of the Polaroid camera. Basically it’ll just end up being super costly. And most of it’s value won’t be in the thing itself but whether or not it makes you look edgy and cool. And you’ll eventually have to come to a decision on whether or not looking cool is worth it or is it better to just switch over. Sorta like you did when you traded in your Nokia for that iPhone.

So rest assured — when self-driving cars take over you will still be able to take your Dodge Viper out to the Drive In. There may even be special roads for you and I can guarantee a lot more rallies for you attend with likeminded folks. And it will be fun for you to reflect on how bad ass gas is and not having some computer telling you to stay in your lane. Then you’ll dance to the oldies and swallow handfuls of geritol. So what’s with the negativity i read in this thread?

This topic is not about some deeper effort to steal away your civil rights nor infect the drinking water with prions - it will just be the same thing that’s been creeping up on you for decades in the automotive industry. It’s not about loss of freedom or system failures. You need to look at this for what it truly is. The eventual dreams of the automotive industry taking it’s next step in what has been a million steps since man first strapped horse to buggy.

* For example we all had to switch from regular leaded gas to unleaded. It happened. I mean we all remember that transition right? It wasn’t all that crazy or revolutionary, but it effected everyone all at the same period of time. It was a transition in the automotive industry that happened and we all survived. Now you can’t find Regular Leaded gas anywhere — but nobody is hollering about that here - on the cusp of 2020. I mean think about it - 2020. It is the future now like it or not. And whomever complained that the loss of leaded gas was infringing on their freedom is long long gone.

But you can forever be a fossil fuel aficionado.
Whatever you think freedom is will remain unscathed by the progressions of modern man.

You do remember the Jetson’s right? There cars flew through the air. Back to the Future the car ran on plutonium. You guys seen Minority Report? We all knew self-driving cars was coming for decades. Why should the auto-industry now be restrained from progressing to it’s natural course. Space cars. Cars that drive themselves. The automotive industry is driven by innovation. It has been since it was a seed and won’t stop now it’s a giant oak.

I mean why be scared or offended by this? I don’t get it. Everyone today is totally fine with unleaded gas — and we have 3 varieties to select from not satiated your primal desire to bitch and complain? You’ll still have it when everything goes self-driving too but it will just cost you $40 bucks or more a gallon. Cause nobody will need it anymore. Demand shrinks, prices sky rocket.

I mean we made the seat belt schism of 1992 ?
I mean we all buckle our seat belt now. There was a time when nobody did. Remember the lone holdout who refused to buckle up? You all knew that guy. One of your buddy. My buddy’s name was Haywood (no joke) he was this surfer cat who’s dad was an exec for chevron (the irony) and he road all tough in this dark blue maxima. Well i buckled up and he didn’t. I guess it was his way of flouting the law or being “dangerous.” But he eventually transitioned cause of laws and it just got old and tiresome acting all tough and being the lone hold out.

My point is how can you progress to anti-lock breaks and not self-driving cars. Self driving cars always been the dream. It’s always been the mission from the inception of auto-making.

Since the day we made the horse and buggy. We were like how do we lose this stinky horse and it’s foul gas. Then we went to the combustible “horseless” engine and have been saying ever since, how do we make a “human-less” engine and get rid of this stinky shit and foul gas.

Well the time is upon us. Kick and scream. Trying and stop it. Make it some bold statement of rebellion just like Haywood did with refusing to wear his seat belt. Make the issue something completely other than what it is if it makes you feel better.

But as someone (me) who graduated from the same design school that has produced all the top automotive designers in the world - the heads of the BMW design team to Volkswagen, to Ford, the dream has always been exactly what they saw on the Jetson’s. Or watched in Minority Report. Or ever dreamt of what glorious things the future could bring. That’s what this is about. The dream of the ultimate car. Nothing less nothing more.

* The ironic news is that when we do finally fully switch over to electric/hydrogen automatic driving automobiles (in the near future) the only ones left crashing into each other or sitting in traffic will be those we call “The Freedom Drivers.” Look forward to idea of being known as a Freedom Driver when the masses get a load of your Metallic Blue Torino chugging down the road. All the dudes in their self-driving cars will look over, give you the thumbs up, and think to themselves, that guy must be fucking loaded to spend money keeping that badass machine running. That must cost him a fortune.

 

[Akrasian]

Not reaching at all about onboard radar. Just look ahead. Pun intended.

Solar will never keep pace with energy requirements of the scale you propose. That is unless there are solar panel seeds to grow the panels without all the energy otherwise required to produce the raw materials and manufacture the panels in the real world. Don't get me wrong I like PV panels. I own some large ones. I also know what they can do and the costs associated. The efficiency has increased over the last 30 years and cost has dropped but there will always be clouds and night which greatly impact cost effectiveness. Then theres storage. Batteries are not there yet. Very expensive system.

Solar is still a no go even with government subsidies. But solar seeds would be a game changer.

Wind power is expensive and inefficient. Ask T. Boone Pickens. He has more than enough money to make it happen but he wouldn't risk his own money. And he couldn't get investors or financing.

Yes climate change is real. Spring. Summer. Fall. Winter. I remember when it was called Global Warming. I also remember when Global Cooling was the cause celebre. Why invest in driverless cars when your climate change is to end human existence in 12 years? What a conundrum.:banghead:

Actually, storage is being worked on, and is an obvious solution, though it will take a little while still. Hydrogen fuel cells are likely the long term power source for cars. Electrolysis produces the hydrogen. The emissions are water vapor. It'll be produced when the wind and sun are appropriate. Easily stored. Easily moved to where needed.

Go ahead and mock man caused climate change. It's real, and you are showing an anti-scientific bias with your post. Hell, it's been known since the 1970s at least, and the evidence just keeps stacking up. I hope you're not one of those who when a snow storm comes "so much for global warming" even though one of the predicted effects of more heat in the atmosphere is that cold fronts from the arctic will travel more quickly and get further south, even if the average temperature overall is rising steadily.

We can either adopt tech to help reduce the environmental damage, or tell our grandkids "sorry, I was an idiot. You're going to suffer for my selfishness."

 

[Ramhusker]

Self-driving cars are coming. They are here now.

Rest assured though, nobody is gonna deprive you of your favorite gas guzzling ‘73 Ranchero.
It’s true. Nobody is taking your car away.

But just know the gas powered car will soon go the way of the Polaroid camera. Basically it’ll just end up being super costly. And most of it’s value won’t be in the thing itself but whether or not it makes you look edgy and cool. And you’ll eventually have to come to a decision on whether or not looking cool is worth it or is it better to just switch over. Sorta like you did when you traded in your Nokia for that iPhone.

So rest assured — when self-driving cars take over you will still be able to take your Dodge Viper out to the Drive In. There may even be special roads for you and I can guarantee a lot more rallies for you attend with likeminded folks. And it will be fun for you to reflect on how bad ass gas is and not having some computer telling you to stay in your lane. Then you’ll dance to the oldies and swallow handfuls of geritol. So what’s with the negativity i read in this thread?

This topic is not about some deeper effort to steal away your civil rights nor infect the drinking water with prions - it will just be the same thing that’s been creeping up on you for decades in the automotive industry. It’s not about loss of freedom or system failures. You need to look at this for what it truly is. The eventual dreams of the automotive industry taking it’s next step in what has been a million steps since man first strapped horse to buggy.

* For example we all had to switch from regular leaded gas to unleaded. It happened. I mean we all remember that transition right? It wasn’t all that crazy or revolutionary, but it effected everyone all at the same period of time. It was a transition in the automotive industry that happened and we all survived. Now you can’t find Regular Leaded gas anywhere — but nobody is hollering about that here - on the cusp of 2020. I mean think about it - 2020. It is the future now like it or not. And whomever complained that the loss of leaded gas was infringing on their freedom is long long gone.

But you can forever be a fossil fuel aficionado.
Whatever you think freedom is will remain unscathed by the progressions of modern man.

You do remember the Jetson’s right? There cars flew through the air. Back to the Future the car ran on plutonium. You guys seen Minority Report? We all knew self-driving cars was coming for decades. Why should the auto-industry now be restrained from progressing to it’s natural course. Space cars. Cars that drive themselves. The automotive industry is driven by innovation. It has been since it was a seed and won’t stop now it’s a giant oak.

I mean why be scared or offended by this? I don’t get it. Everyone today is totally fine with unleaded gas — and we have 3 varieties to select from not satiated your primal desire to bitch and complain? You’ll still have it when everything goes self-driving too but it will just cost you $40 bucks or more a gallon. Cause nobody will need it anymore. Demand shrinks, prices sky rocket.

I mean we made the seat belt schism of 1992 ?
I mean we all buckle our seat belt now. There was a time when nobody did. Remember the lone holdout who refused to buckle up? You all knew that guy. One of your buddy. My buddy’s name was Haywood (no joke) he was this surfer cat who’s dad was an exec for chevron (the irony) and he road all tough in this dark blue maxima. Well i buckled up and he didn’t. I guess it was his way of flouting the law or being “dangerous.” But he eventually transitioned cause of laws and it just got old and tiresome acting all tough and being the lone hold out.

My point is how can you progress to anti-lock breaks and not self-driving cars. Self driving cars always been the dream. It’s always been the mission from the inception of auto-making.

Since the day we made the horse and buggy. We were like how do we lose this stinky horse and it’s foul gas. Then we went to the combustible “horseless” engine and have been saying ever since, how do we make a “human-less” engine and get rid of this stinky crap and foul gas.

Well the time is upon us. Kick and scream. Trying and stop it. Make it some bold statement of rebellion just like Haywood did with refusing to wear his seat belt. Make the issue something completely other than what it is if it makes you feel better.

But as someone (me) who graduated from the same design school that has produced all the top automotive designers in the world - the heads of the BMW design team to Volkswagen, to Ford, the dream has always been exactly what they saw on the Jetson’s. Or watched in Minority Report. Or ever dreamt of what glorious things the future could bring. That’s what this is about. The dream of the ultimate car. Nothing less nothing more.

* The ironic news is that when we do finally fully switch over to electric/hydrogen automatic driving automobiles (in the near future) the only ones left crashing into each other or sitting in traffic will be those we call “The Freedom Drivers.” Look forward to idea of being known as a Freedom Driver when the masses get a load of your Metallic Blue Torino chugging down the road. All the dudes in their self-driving cars will look over, give you the thumbs up, and think to themselves, that guy must be freaking loaded to spend money keeping that badass machine running. That must cost him a fortune.

Just going to need a shit load of coal to charge electric cars. We couldn't do it today if we wanted to so tech is not here yet for that.

 

[coconut]

Go ahead and mock man caused climate change. It's real, and you are showing an anti-scientific bias with your post. Hell, it's been known since the 1970s at least, and the evidence just keeps stacking up.

Kudos for your passion. However I am a scientist. I also remember the '70s. Global warming was not a topic and why would it since available temperature data showed cooling for decades.

The only evidence stacking up is that of the climate alarmists continually backtracking over their failed predictions.

The sun drives the climate on earth. The suns intensity is variable thus protracted periods of global warming and cooling. Perhaps one they will figure a way to tax the sun?

 

[Akrasian]

Kudos for your passion. However I am a scientist. I also remember the '70s. Global warming was not a topic and why would it since available temperature data showed cooling for decades.

The only evidence stacking up is that of the climate alarmists continually backtracking over their failed predictions.

The sun drives the climate on earth. The suns intensity is variable thus protracted periods of global warming and cooling. Perhaps one they will figure a way to tax the sun?

What kind of scientist?

 

[coconut]

What kind of scientist?

You first.

 

[Akrasian]

You first.

You made the claim. Obviously it's false or irrelevant.

 

[coconut]

You made the claim. Obviously it's false or irrelevant.

Wrong again junior. You accused me of an "anti-scientific bias".

BS Geology and Geophysics
MS Geological Engineering

 

[Akrasian]

Wrong again junior.

BS Geology and Geophysics
MS Geological Engineering

So given the degrees and your posts, you work with gas engineering?

 

[Riverumbbq]

Kudos for your passion. However I am a scientist. I also remember the '70s. Global warming was not a topic and why would it since available temperature data showed cooling for decades.

The only evidence stacking up is that of the climate alarmists continually backtracking over their failed predictions.

The sun drives the climate on earth. The suns intensity is variable thus protracted periods of global warming and cooling. Perhaps one they will figure a way to tax the sun?

They very well have been discussing it since the 70's, knowledge & examples of the antarctic & greenland ice melt are decades known, same with the melt on high altitude mountain ranges across the planet. The dire effects resulting from human overpopulation have at least been the subject for scholastic studies since the time of Malthus.

 

[coconut]

They very well have been discussing it since the 70's, knowledge & examples of the antarctic & greenland ice melt are decades known, same with the melt on high altitude mountain ranges across the planet. The dire effects resulting from human overpopulation have at least been the subject for scholastic studies since the time of Malthus.

Sorry but no, not in the '70s.

 

[coconut]

So given the degrees and your posts, you work with gas engineering?

Environmental

 

[Riverumbbq]

Sorry but no, not in the '70s.

Evidently you went to different schools than I did. I can remember discussions from the 60's on overpopulation.

 

[Akrasian]

Environmental

Strange. The vast majority of environmental scientists - except for those employed by the carbon fuel industries - acknowledge man caused global warming as a major problem. The global temps have been rising faster since the beginning of the petroleum industry especially than at any time in history - post ice age periods had bigger rises, but over much larger time scales. The effects of co2 and some other aerosols on temperature are well studied. All those point to a global catastrophe - not for the world, but for the human species, as oceans rise, and the environment changes quicker than humans can adapt.

But what are billions of deaths compared to more profits for the oil companies? And why should we take action to build a sustainable world for our kids and grandkids?

 

[Akrasian]

Evidently you went to different schools than I did. I can remember discussions from the 60's on overpopulation.

It's weird. In Britain in the '70s they had a mockumentary called Alternative 003 which relied on what was commonly known research about global warming. They didn't invent it, they just tried to make money on it, and what the trend would mean for the world. That's not the source of the global warming data - again, they just relied on what was commonly reported info. Yet supposedly there was nothing out there about it. Strange.