Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 157 of 157

Thread: Self-driving cars

  1. #101
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post


    Self-driving car slams into man while testing its ‘pedestrian detection’ feature
    Ollie McAteer for Metro.co.uk Wednesday 27 May 2015


    Bit awkward for Volvo.
    One of their new self-driving cars was testing a ‘pedestrian detection’ feature when it rammed into someone.
    The XC60 is seen reversing in a Dominican Republic car park.
    It then accelerates forwards and smashes into a bloke with his hands in his pockets who put too much trust in the machine.


    http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/27/self-d...ature-5216867/
    They probably shouldn't have been testing a feature they didn't buy:

    the incident happened because the people who bought the Volvo did not pay for the pedestrian detection functionality.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  2. #102

    Default

    ^lol, that's too funny "lets run someone over to test that we didn't buy the pedestrian saftey feature".

  3. #103

    Default

    So... the pedestrians have to buy it?


    Maybe through crowd funding.

  4. #104
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,045

    Default

    Wow! A living (still, I hope) crash test dummy.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  5. #105

    Default

    Just wait till someone hops into a rental car or test drives a new model and begins texting while the car drives itself but mows down pedestrians. Who is at fault when they realize that the car did not have certain features.

    http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp
    http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/wetroad.asp
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  6. #106
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,587

    Default

    This article is a bit wrong. It wasn't a self-driving vehicle, there was someone in the driver's seat, and a passenger. What they were attempting to test was the pedestrian detector, which is supposed to detect a pedestrian at low speeds and hit the breaks. However, a Volvo spokesperson said that the accident would have occurred even if they had purchased the package since the driver rapidly accelerated towards a pedestrian, and the system would have essentially been over-ridden by that act.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  7. #107
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    8,795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Just wait till someone hops into a rental car or test drives a new model and begins texting while the car drives itself but mows down pedestrians. Who is at fault when they realize that the car did not have certain features.

    http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp
    http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/wetroad.asp
    It wasn't an autonomous vehicle. It was a normal vehicle with some driver assist features. Obviously in such cases, the driver would be at fault.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    This article is a bit wrong. It wasn't a self-driving vehicle, there was someone in the driver's seat, and a passenger. What they were attempting to test was the pedestrian detector, which is supposed to detect a pedestrian at low speeds and hit the breaks. However, a Volvo spokesperson said that the accident would have occurred even if they had purchased the package since the driver rapidly accelerated towards a pedestrian, and the system would have essentially been over-ridden by that act.
    Wow, and manufacturers would expect car buyers to read a 1,000 page manual on how to drive their self driving cars??? I can imagine the long list of legal terms and conditions.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  9. #109
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    This article is a bit wrong. It wasn't a self-driving vehicle, there was someone in the driver's seat, and a passenger. What they were attempting to test was the pedestrian detector, which is supposed to detect a pedestrian at low speeds and hit the breaks. However, a Volvo spokesperson said that the accident would have occurred even if they had purchased the package since the driver rapidly accelerated towards a pedestrian, and the system would have essentially been over-ridden by that act.
    Wow, and manufacturers would expect car buyers to read a 1,000 page manual on how to drive their self driving cars??? I can imagine the long list of legal terms and conditions.
    Volvo doesn't call it a self-driving car and yes, drivers are expected to know how to operate their vehicle and have read the manual.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  10. #110

    Default

    SPECIAL SECTION: TRANSPORTATION
    Tipping Point in Transit
    By FARHAD MANJOO JUNE 10, 2015

    Excerpt:

    "Cars and transportation will change more in the next 20 years than they’ve changed in the last 75 years,” said M. Bart Herring, the head of product management at Mercedes-Benz USA. “What we were doing 10 years ago wasn’t that much different from what we were doing 50 years ago. The cars got more comfortable, but for the most part we were putting gas in the cars and going where we wanted to go. What’s going to happen in the next 20 years is the equivalent of..."

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/bits...nt-in-transit/
    Last edited by KC; 10-06-2015 at 06:44 PM.

  11. #111
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,612

    Default

    Here it starts.

    Hackers seize control of Jeep, then crash it, using a laptop and cellphone about 15 km away

    Hackers have managed to take control of a car and crash it into a ditch while sitting on their sofa about 15 kilometres away.

    In the first such breach of its kind, security experts caused the engine to cut out and applied the brakes on a Jeep Cherokee, sending it into a spin.

    The U.S. hackers said they used just a laptop and cellphone to access the vehicle’s on-board systems via its wireless Internet connection. They claim that more than 470,000 cars made by Fiat Chrysler could be at risk.

    The hack was revealed by security researchers Charlie Miller, a former staffer at the National Security Agency, and Chris Valasek. They worked with Andy Greenberg, a writer with tech website Wired.com, who was driving the Jeep on public roads in St. Louis.

    In a demonstration for The Washington Post, Miller had to start the car the old-fashioned way, with his Jeep key fob. But once it was running, he found the vehicle’s Internet address and, while sitting in his office and typing on a MacBook Pro, hacked in through the dashboard information and entertainment system.
    Wired Story: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers...-jeep-highway/
    CBC link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ha...demo-1.3162944

    Wouldn't a self driving car be even more vulnerable?

  12. #112
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,045

    Default

    Wow! They need to get a fix in a hurry. My daughter just bought a new Cherokee.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  13. #113

    Default

    Even if they just can kill the engine, can you imagine the freeway traffic jams if 50 cars suddenly stop on a freeway?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #114
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    6,997

    Default

    On Chrysler's and Fiat's UConnect vehicles they could cut brakes, engine, control steering in reverse, engage brakes, plus control the radio, air conditioning, wipers

  15. #115

    Default

    They could change the radio station to country and western.


    That would cause a lot of accidents.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  16. #116

    Default

    Fiat Chrysler recalls 1.4M vehicles due to hacking vulnerability
    Company takes action as researchers demonstrate how hackers can take remote control of vehicles

    http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com...CMO-EN07272015
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  17. #117

    Default

    These are not self driving cars whats your purpose in posting this in this thread?

    I'm sure PRT is hackable too, the only problem is, hackers have no interest in a system that isn't used.

  18. #118
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    In terms of self-driving cars I'd say the existing manufacturers woeful record on systems security is relevant. Hacking a completely self-driving car could lead to this:

    https://youtu.be/5UBdrMTxsvs?t=43s

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  19. #119
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    6,997

    Default

    And to get back on topic, yet another Google car was in an accident... yet again it wasn't Google's fault as the car was rear ended.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/goog...ries-1.3156494

  20. #120

    Default How driverless cars will reduce urban traffic

    This is a neat article, check out the little simulators:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...raffic/400526/

    Won't this be sad for all those land owners with inner city parking lots? All their revenue will go... Heaven forbid, they might have to develop their pot of gold...

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    In terms of self-driving cars I'd say the existing manufacturers woeful record on systems security is relevant. Hacking a completely self-driving car could lead to this:

    https://youtu.be/5UBdrMTxsvs?t=43s
    Lol, "entering sleep mode..."

  22. #122

    Default

    I think this reveals more about the limitations of today's polling rather than any future.

    Ask a senior if they want a self driving car or to pay some outrageous unaffordable insurance rate or lose personal transportation altogether. Or ask a teen if they want to give up screen time to sit in gridlock for hours or maneuver - MANUALLY - a big old primative piece of technology down a city street - while also paying some huge insurance rate.


    Self-driving cars will have to pry the steering wheel from our cold, dead hands, poll says

    http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/28/13...lley-blue-book
    Last edited by KC; 28-09-2016 at 10:55 AM.

  23. #123
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    8,795

    Default

    I'm sure if they were conducted back in the late 1800's, most people would have responded in a poll that they were never going to give up their horse and carriage, too. Doesn't mean much.

  24. #124
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    It will affect how companies implement it. They'll need to, and are, rolling out automated features gradually. We'll get self-driving cars in the "how to boil a frog" method.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  25. #125
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    It will affect how companies implement it. They'll need to, and are, rolling out automated features gradually. We'll get self-driving cars in the "how to boil a frog" method.
    I love to drive but a car without pedals and a steering wheel is something that would catch on quickly. You keep the old manual car around for Sunday drives but it would quickly become as out of place and be viewed as dangerous a car without seat belts.

    I think cars without pedals and a steering wheel are 10 years away and there will be a quick transition.

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    It will affect how companies implement it. They'll need to, and are, rolling out automated features gradually. We'll get self-driving cars in the "how to boil a frog" method.
    I love to drive but a car without pedals and a steering wheel is something that would catch on quickly. You keep the old manual car around for Sunday drives but it would quickly become as out of place and be viewed as dangerous a car without seat belts.

    I think cars without pedals and a steering wheel are 10 years away and there will be a quick transition.
    Like replacing the abacus or slide rule with an "electronic calculator".

    I'll have to look for a video showing the interior of the Sleeper car, here's the sound:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SnT6_S-aECc
    Last edited by KC; 29-09-2016 at 06:49 AM.

  27. #127

    Default

    I wonder what a police chase will look like between two self driving cars.

    I also wonder if we'll need shoulders on roads any more, or streetlights, or headlights.

    If they go electric and batteries don't improve significantly will single person pods, maybe two or three wheeled pods predominate? What kinds of heaters will they have?

    Will transportation departments disappear with just say Google's computers dictating road design to cities?

  28. #128

    Default

    ^The short answer is, in time, everything we know about personal transportation and passenger vehicles will completely upend.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  29. #129
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,244

    Default

    I don't see the point of them. I'll wait until the first one is hacked, and causes multiple accidents

  30. #130
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.

  31. #131

    Default

    But self-driving cars will have a significantly larger attack surface, involving so many more sensors and processors.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  32. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    But self-driving cars will have a significantly larger attack surface, involving so many more sensors and processors.
    Compare that to hundreds of thousands of new teenage drivers being added to the roads each year, many also consuming various drugs before driving, and then doing so for years thereafter. Then There's all blue collar and professional workers getting blitzed every night and then driving to work the next morning.

    In cars they could easily add a secondary ultra secure autonomous monitoring system to cut the power if anything goes wrong.
    Last edited by KC; 29-10-2016 at 05:10 PM.

  33. #133
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I think this reveals more about the limitations of today's polling rather than any future.

    Ask a senior if they want a self driving car or to pay some outrageous unaffordable insurance rate or lose personal transportation altogether. Or ask a teen if they want to give up screen time to sit in gridlock for hours or maneuver - MANUALLY - a big old primative piece of technology down a city street - while also paying some huge insurance rate.


    Self-driving cars will have to pry the steering wheel from our cold, dead hands, poll says

    http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/28/13...lley-blue-book
    Most people are selfish.

    The biggest problem on the roads today is distracted driving. And autonomous self driving cars don't drive drunk or stoned. Self driving cars could save thousands of lives each year, and prevent many times more injuries. They'll be much, much safer.

    When the subject of safety, and safety features, comes up, it almost always involves safety for those inside the vehicle, ignoring the people outside the vehicle. I wonder if it makes drivers less cautious, because they are safer, but making it more dangerous to those outside the vehicle.

    I'm sure there will be some problems with self driving cars, and maybe some collisions, but the numbers will be minuscule compared to the carnage that we seem to accept as "just the way it is".

    I remember a conversation with a police officer after yet another drunk driver killed someone I knew. I was beside myself, wondering how in the world someone could be so stupid and selfish to drive drunk when we all know what can happen. He said everybody thinks they are a great driver, and that it will never happen to them.

    I may not live to see autonomous cars take over the roads, but I wish it could happen tomorrow. Then I wouldn't have to worry so much about idiots looking at their phone while they drive. Or people who think speeding is ok because they are in a hurry, and they are better drivers than everybody else.

    I'm interested to see what the insurance ramifications will be for those who choose to drive after self-driving cars become common. Will they be higher, because someone chooses a more dangerous option? Or will they be lower, because self-driving cars make the roads safer for everyone?

    I also wonder about the cost of owning a car they drive themselves. I don't think many people will own these self driving vehicles. Instead, it'ill be similar to hailing a cab. Could save people a lot of money compared to owning a car, and all of the costs associated with that. No need for a garage, or parking at home. Owning a car will be a luxury.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 29-10-2016 at 10:22 PM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  34. #134
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,244

    Default

    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.
    Until they are hacked, and you know someone will, because they can. I wonder what happens when they break down? The rider in the front or back can't fix it. I simply see no point.. Sorry,

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.
    Until they are hacked, and you know someone will, because they can. I wonder what happens when they break down? The rider in the front or back can't fix it. I simply see no point.. Sorry,
    I can do a lot to fix a broken down car but today, I'd probably still just call AMA to tow it rather than fix it on the side of the road myself.

    ...and my wife has her outlandishly complex Touareg that she wouldn't dare let me take a wrench to if it broke down.

    It will be like switching from free TV via rabbit ears to hugely expensive cable TV and people will jump at the chance to handover their money for a bit of convenience.
    Last edited by KC; 30-10-2016 at 08:28 AM.

  36. #136
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.
    Until they are hacked, and you know someone will, because they can. I wonder what happens when they break down? The rider in the front or back can't fix it. I simply see no point.. Sorry,
    I can do a lot to fix a broken down car but today, I'd probably still just call AMA to tow it rather than fix it on the side of the road myself.

    ...and my wife has her outlandishly complex Touareg that she wouldn't dare let me take a wrench to if it broke down.

    It will be like switching from free TV via rabbit ears to hugely expensive cable TV and people will jump at the chance to handover their money for a bit of convenience.
    My brother in law is a mechanic,, so we have no worries who will fix our cars. Good anology re the rabbit ears. I guess we won't be jumping on this concept, if we even live to see it. It's a shame more jobs will be lost in all of this, it's almost as if we want the Human race to become extinct.

  37. #137
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.
    Until they are hacked, and you know someone will, because they can. I wonder what happens when they break down? The rider in the front or back can't fix it. I simply see no point.. Sorry,
    I stand by my comment, the fact that self driving cars are far better drivers than humans will outweigh any 'hacking' done by an astronomical margin.

    And the majority of people now can't fix their cars. Self driving or not. That won't change anything either.

    The way this may go is that you don't 'own' your car, car sharing is going to be far more likely. So what do you do? You get out, call the next car and you're on your way.

    As to your 'job loss' comment, we've survived without all kinds of jobs that have been replaced by other technology. There is a long list of technology that replaced human (or animal) jobs. Tractors, weaving machines, washing machines, computers and more. There is short term job loss, but long term those jobs are replaced in other sectors due to efficiency gains.

  38. #138
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,612

    Default

    I stand by my comment, the fact that self driving cars are far better drivers than humans will outweigh any 'hacking' done by an astronomical margin.
    So when a car is hacked, which could actually become a common issue, and it drives off a cliff killing 4 people, it's still a safer alternative than people driven?

    I'd have to 100% disagree. Keep in mind I'm not doubting self driving cars are safer because that's true, just that I think it gets negated when the issue of wireless hacking gets put into the picture. The digital security of self driving vehicles is going to have to be astronomical for it to be successful.

  39. #139

    Default

    A single well publicized hacking incident can kill self driving cars. Many people will not fly even though flying is safer than driving.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  40. #140
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    So when a car is hacked, which could actually become a common issue
    Common issue? Why would it be common? Are people going to start commonly murdering each other because we can?

    I mean people obviously murder each other. 516 homicides in Canada in 2014.

    But in 2013 Canada had 2114 die by car accident. If self driving cars half that number, and people start murdering each other at 3x the 2014 rate (with 1,000 being by car) then we're still at a net positive. And you're assuming a lot of people are going to start murdering out of nowhere.

    Can it happen? Yes. Will it happen? Yes. Should we therefore abandon the technology? Hell no.

  41. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Cars sold now, without self driving features, can be hacked and cause accidents.

    Self driving cars will reduce accidents far more than any 'hacking' will cause them.
    Until they are hacked, and you know someone will, because they can. I wonder what happens when they break down? The rider in the front or back can't fix it. I simply see no point.. Sorry,
    I stand by my comment, the fact that self driving cars are far better drivers than humans will outweigh any 'hacking' done by an astronomical margin.

    And the majority of people now can't fix their cars. Self driving or not. That won't change anything either.

    The way this may go is that you don't 'own' your car, car sharing is going to be far more likely. So what do you do? You get out, call the next car and you're on your way.

    As to your 'job loss' comment, we've survived without all kinds of jobs that have been replaced by other technology. There is a long list of technology that replaced human (or animal) jobs. Tractors, weaving machines, washing machines, computers and more. There is short term job loss, but long term those jobs are replaced in other sectors due to efficiency gains.
    "So what do you do? You get out, call the next car and you're on your way."

    Right after you wipe the sperm or puke or diaper leakage off the seat. Or air out the smell of drugs...


    On jobs always being replaced: That may well change going forward in terms of the earnings potential for future jobs. Computers, robotics and automation, etc. may be able to replace much intelligent or skillful work currently done by people. So we end up living lives more like millions of those in the cities of third world nations, inventing various means to just survive as there is little to no demand for what people can offer.
    Last edited by KC; 30-10-2016 at 06:01 PM.

  42. #142
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    8,795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    A single well publicized hacking incident can kill self driving cars. Many people will not fly even though flying is safer than driving.
    And those people are every bit is irrational and bad at logic as those who think self-driving cars won't be safer and/or think they don't have a use.

  43. #143

    Default

    I am not worried about hacking - I am concerned about a computer in a driverless car, swerving and braking to miss something on the road and colliding with a pedestrian on the sidewalk instead.

    A human driver will be more empathetic to running over a pedestrian than a computer would, and may instead collide with another car because a low-speed collision with another driver would cause less suffering than a collision with a pedestrian.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I am not worried about hacking - I am concerned about a computer in a driverless car, swerving and braking to miss something on the road and colliding with a pedestrian on the sidewalk instead.

    A human driver will be more empathetic to running over a pedestrian than a computer would, and may instead collide with another car because a low-speed collision with another driver would cause less suffering than a collision with a pedestrian.
    That's already raising the ethical questions. In a no win draw, who does the computer choose to save, the pedestrian or the driver? Eg rock in the middle of the road, pedestrian on the left, cliff on the right. ...

    I'm not so sure the human driver would choose the cliff.
    Last edited by KC; 31-10-2016 at 11:02 AM.

  45. #145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    A single well publicized hacking incident can kill self driving cars. Many people will not fly even though flying is safer than driving.

    Ford Pinto and gas tank explosions. Not many happened, in fact, tests rigged to produce the said explosion didn't. But...

    Pontiac Fiero 2M4 engine fires. Again, not many actually happened. Didn't deter the folklore...

    Autonomous vehicles and self driving vehicles still have a large uphill battle, but they will become a part of our environment sooner than later. I for one will never buy one unless I am forced to. I love driving.
    Onward and upward

  46. #146
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    Test out and provide feedback to MIT on what you think a self driving car should do: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

  47. #147

    Default

    The hope is that since the computer-generated wouldn't be speeding or distracted, and would slow down more than most human drivers in adverse conditions, there would be fewer of these situations to start with.

    And, the computer should be able to decide that breaking hard and then hitting the rock at a slower speed won't be fatal, so it would sacrifice the car.

    And I'm confident that it would.

    Because Pinto.

    No, not because the pinto shows that automakers are willing to build unsafe cars, but because the whole experience show that the public and the courts will be much, much harder on a company who's designs cause a handful of deaths than they are on individual's daily deadly negligence.
    There can only be one.

  48. #148

    Default

    Partly true, but the focus lately on the distracted driving narrative says that the lawmakers and the courts are paying pretty close attention to the daily driving issues. What the pinto narrative shows more is that people are willing to sue over anything, and that the public will let myth become reality...
    Onward and upward

  49. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    No, not because the pinto shows that automakers are willing to build unsafe cars, but because the whole experience show that the public and the courts will be much, much harder on a company who's designs cause a handful of deaths than they are on individual's daily deadly negligence.
    I still see a lot of brand new GMs on the road & they killed hundreds of people over a decade & they basically got a slap on the wrist from the courts & every regulatory body. All caused by the effort to save literally a couple bucks on a car.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

  50. #150

    Default

    And I own 3 of those allegedly death cars, and have yet to have the keys followed to the ignition once. I can't even forcibly pull the keys out of the ignition. So, like the 2m4 Fiero fires, how many of this event happened? However, this goes directly to the point I'm trying to make. It takes a couple accidents to then allegedly branded car or a maker as unsafe. While I don't expect a Ralph Nader to show up with autonomous cars, this better be in the back of their minds.
    Onward and upward

  51. #151
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,612

    Default

    Common issue? Why would it be common? Are people going to start commonly murdering each other because we can?
    You think hackers are going to magically stop hacking because now it's a vehicle their hacking into and not a computer? You mean these hackers have ethics?

    It's not going to make a difference. The challenge is there. The vpn/anonymous internet is there.

  52. #152

    Default

    They've admitted fault & paid out for at least 124 deaths directly attributed & that doesn't count any of the people covered by the still-ongoing multi-district litigation nor those that GM rejected as not being definitively caused by their acknowledged fault. They recalled 30 MILLION cars.

    That's more than "a couple".
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

  53. #153
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Common issue? Why would it be common? Are people going to start commonly murdering each other because we can?
    You think hackers are going to magically stop hacking because now it's a vehicle their hacking into and not a computer? You mean these hackers have ethics?

    It's not going to make a difference. The challenge is there. The vpn/anonymous internet is there.
    Hacking is not equal to murder and you're making the leap that all hackers are going to be murderers? That's a big moral change from trolling/stealing/other non lethal hacking.

    I see the hacking as more like maybe they'll play bad music on the car audio, change your destination, etc. Not straight up killing people.

  54. #154

    Default

    I find those who always imagine the worst of others are generally pretty crummy people themselves. Kinda like when a fundamentalist Christian talks about the temptations of homosexuality only because they're living a lie & not being themselves & project their mental state on others.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

  55. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    They've admitted fault & paid out for at least 124 deaths directly attributed & that doesn't count any of the people covered by the still-ongoing multi-district litigation nor those that GM rejected as not being definitively caused by their acknowledged fault. They recalled 30 MILLION cars.

    That's more than "a couple".
    Cough...Firestone...Cough...

    There is more than enough to go around.
    Onward and upward

  56. #156

    Default

    Watch the short video on these cars linking together on the road...


    This tiny car can change shape and drive sideways

    http://mashable.com/2015/05/08/eo2-f.../#.R8Byoic1aq9

  57. #157

    Default

    Consider... Self-Driving Cars Will Make Organ Shortages Even Worse

    It’s morbid, but the truth is that due to limitations on who can contribute transplants, among the most reliable sources for healthy organs and tissues are the more than 35,000 people killed each year on American roads (a number that, after years of falling mortality rates, has recently been trending upward). Currently, 1 in 5 organ donations comes from the victim of a vehicular accident. That’s why departments of motor vehicles ask drivers whether they want to be donors.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •