U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-20-2019, 01:44 AM
 
7,527 posts, read 2,885,755 times
Reputation: 5078

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockyman View Post
Can't mix driverless with drivers. It has to be one or the other to work properly. If it's 80% autonomous then the other 20% will be speeding and cutting off the driverless causing accidents. Has to be 100% autonomous.
Not necessarily true as the test vehicles have shown. Just make dash cams mandatory. It could be automatically be linked to the same system the redlight cameras are linked to. Cut off an autonomous car and get a ticket mailed to your house. Make every autonomous car essentially a cop car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2019, 01:59 AM
 
7,527 posts, read 2,885,755 times
Reputation: 5078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockyman View Post
Article says it won't be anytime soon and lists valid reasons. Why are people in denial? It won't be soon. Most of us posting in the automotive section are going to be dead before it's the norm. Too bad I don't want to drive anymore.
Itís the internet, you can post any article saying anything you want. If you want to believe anything, you can find an article backing that up for you regardless of what it is. Thereís plenty of articles stating the contrary.

What the readers job to do is compile all that information and make logical assumptions based off known facts.

Right now thereís too much demand for autonomous cars. Everybody from the elderly to the trucking industry stands to benefit.
Human crash statistics are proving that humans arenít really that hard to replace anyway. The bar is set pretty low.
Insurance companies stand a lot to gain from less human error.
A lot of companies are throwing a lot of money at it.

Most technologies fail either because the market isnít there, the government doesnít support it, there isnít enough investment capital, or a breakthrough technology hasnít been discovered yet. In the case of autonomous vehicles, all 4 of those requirements are already lined up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 02:02 AM
 
7,670 posts, read 3,194,402 times
Reputation: 10703
Some drivers are impossible to figure out too. They drive with signals on, stop to make a right turn, drive in rain with emergency flashers on, make stupid decisions. Lots could go wrong but I will be happy to see them. It will be great for seniors for doctor appointments and shopping. Dropping the kids off at school. It can park itself when it drops you off in front. Lots of good things potentially.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 06:07 AM
 
3,962 posts, read 7,502,886 times
Reputation: 5361
Self-driving cars are solutions to problems that don't exist. Seniors are and have been going to doctor appointments and shopping. Kids are and have been dropped off at school. Greed is what this is all about. Technology companies stand to make billions if they can push this idea through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 06:20 AM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,005 posts, read 732,060 times
Reputation: 11020
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidt1 View Post
Self-driving cars are solutions to problems that don't exist. Seniors are and have been going to doctor appointments and shopping. Kids are and have been dropped off at school. Greed is what this is all about. Technology companies stand to make billions if they can push this idea through.
Circa 1900:
"Horseless carriages are solutions to problems that don't exist. Seniors are and have been going to doctor appointments and shopping. Kids are and have been dropped off at school. Greed is what this is all about. Technology companies stand to make billions if they can push this idea through."

Kudos to you for shrewdly deducing that the manufacturers of driver-less vehicles hope to make a profit. Does it elude you that the manufacturers of ... well, of every single mode of transportation that exists ... are also profit driven?

So, your argument is this:
1) But once we didn't have them, and
2) Someone is going to make money off this

That describes everything. Literally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Posting from my space yacht.
7,495 posts, read 2,856,265 times
Reputation: 13616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Not necessarily true as the test vehicles have shown. Just make dash cams mandatory. It could be automatically be linked to the same system the redlight cameras are linked to. Cut off an autonomous car and get a ticket mailed to your house. Make every autonomous car essentially a cop car.
WTF? I would never purchase such a malevolent vehicle. Why do you seek to control other people to this degree?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 10:28 AM
 
7,527 posts, read 2,885,755 times
Reputation: 5078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone View Post
WTF? I would never purchase such a malevolent vehicle. Why do you seek to control other people to this degree?
If youíre driving recklessly, just because itís not in front of a cop doesnít mean itís not reckless. Means nothing to me if somebody cuts me off and gets a ticket.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 12:46 PM
 
7,277 posts, read 4,699,513 times
Reputation: 12680
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvetters63 View Post
We still have horses, but it wasn't very long after cars arrived that people stopped using horses to go to the store and go shopping with. Once autonomous tech is commonplace (next step up from all the driving aids we already have) it won't take much of a push to go all the way in on it from a regulatory perspective, whether you or I like it or not.
I wonder about that. The first "cars" were in the late 1880s. The first practical mainstream car - the Ford Model-T - didn't arrive until 1908, and didn't really reach dominance until after WW1. Even in the 20s and 30s, it is likely that persons in smaller communities would have ridden horses for daily transportation. So, that's a period of 50 years from initial concept to overwhelming dominance. And this was in the most tumultuously rapidly developing time in history, witnessing the most lifestyle changes and technological changes in history - the first half of the 20th century.

By similar reckoning, the first tentative forays into autonomous cars was in the late 1990s. If we follow the history of the horse and Model T, we should by now be seeing the first mainstream autonomous cars marketed to mainstream consumers. This, to my knowledge, hasn't yet happened. But even if it happened tomorrow, and was widely embraced by consumers, it would be another 30 years before traditional human-operated cars would be relegated to hobby/sporting/niche status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856 View Post
Circa 1900:
"Horseless carriages are solutions to problems that don't exist. Seniors are and have been going to doctor appointments and shopping. Kids are and have been dropped off at school. Greed is what this is all about. Technology companies stand to make billions if they can push this idea through."

Kudos to you for shrewdly deducing that the manufacturers of driver-less vehicles hope to make a profit. Does it elude you that the manufacturers of ... well, of every single mode of transportation that exists ... are also profit driven?

So, your argument is this:
1) But once we didn't have them, and
2) Someone is going to make money off this

That describes everything. Literally.
Your point is well taken; prognostication is often needlessly conservative, even purblind. But several factors obtrude. First, in 1900 there was an enthusiastic view of the future, and embracing of technology. That was an era where it was believed that science would better Mankind, fulfilling Man's destiny of benevolent rule over the earth. Today, there's endemic skepticism... science is corrupt and ruinous, technology causes pollution, wastes resources and disconnects us from the human element (and from nature). In 1900 engineers were heroes. Today they're widely perceived as pencil-necked geeks or corrupt servants of the overlord-class. The public's embrace of new things, of electric things and metallic things and things that glow and make noise and have whirling gears and whatnot, just isn't what it was in 1900.

Second, in 1900 there was a grass-roots desire and capacity to tinker, to buy something and to modify it, be it a new agricultural tool or grandfather clock or whatnot. Today, technology is viewed as a black-box and an impenetrable enigma. We enjoy its use, but are hardly suited to open the proverbial hood. This means that acceptance may still be possible at a consumer level, but feared and shunned at a tinkerer-level. Cobblers and blacksmiths in 1900 would likely have been enthused about cars. Sure, cars supplanted horses and destroyed horse-oriented jobs. But they were a wonderful opportunity for blacksmiths to redefine themselves as mechanics. Well, how will today's technological innovations offer comparable opportunity?

Autonomous cars are coming, but the rate of acceptance, let alone of dominance, is much overstated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Raleigh
7,674 posts, read 5,657,198 times
Reputation: 10552
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Really pretty much absurd. The die has already been cast. I would agree trucks are the first. The return is very high and there are lots of opportunity for partial implementation.

Then rapid transit buses. Cut the size to a quarter and flexible routing. Does away with light rail and conventional buses.

Then for hire vehicles. Again simple implementation and easily afford the cost.

Finally the great mass of vehicles. By now the price is down and the savings clear.

Ten to fifteen years...
In the early 90's my teacher thought, "By the year 2000, every student will have a computer at their desk and I'll teach using that." Though he was correct in that there was much more digital content and instruction by the year 2000, he didn't have a computer at every desk. 19 years later he still doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockyman View Post
Can't mix driverless with drivers. It has to be one or the other to work properly. If it's 80% autonomous then the other 20% will be speeding and cutting off the driverless causing accidents. Has to be 100% autonomous.
That's kind of absurd. Especially if the driverless car has cameras (which it kind of has to) that monitor what's going on in 360 degrees. It also assumes that everyone drives like a knucklehead. They don't.

Furthermore, I've said this before, no one seems to want to acknowledge or respond to it, but why do we assume a Jetson-esque reality to the self driving car? Practically speaking, I don't think it will work day-to-day in the sense of programming a destination and then totally napping til you're parked. An easy example of why one might need a steering wheel and pedals is to get in to park at an event. We park for College football games in an empty grass field. There are folks directing us but getting the SDV to recognize where the approach is, and direct it down a basically featureless lot into a "Spot" is another challenge I foresee. Or if you see somewhere you want to stop.

Which isn't to say that it isn't the future; I think it is. But I think its more like Autopilot on a yacht.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 02:48 PM
 
7,527 posts, read 2,885,755 times
Reputation: 5078
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
I wonder about that. The first "cars" were in the late 1880s. The first practical mainstream car - the Ford Model-T - didn't arrive until 1908, and didn't really reach dominance until after WW1. Even in the 20s and 30s, it is likely that persons in smaller communities would have ridden horses for daily transportation. So, that's a period of 50 years from initial concept to overwhelming dominance. And this was in the most tumultuously rapidly developing time in history, witnessing the most lifestyle changes and technological changes in history - the first half of the 20th century.

By similar reckoning, the first tentative forays into autonomous cars was in the late 1990s. If we follow the history of the horse and Model T, we should by now be seeing the first mainstream autonomous cars marketed to mainstream consumers. This, to my knowledge, hasn't yet happened. But even if it happened tomorrow, and was widely embraced by consumers, it would be another 30 years before traditional human-operated cars would be relegated to hobby/sporting/niche status.



Your point is well taken; prognostication is often needlessly conservative, even purblind. But several factors obtrude. First, in 1900 there was an enthusiastic view of the future, and embracing of technology. That was an era where it was believed that science would better Mankind, fulfilling Man's destiny of benevolent rule over the earth. Today, there's endemic skepticism... science is corrupt and ruinous, technology causes pollution, wastes resources and disconnects us from the human element (and from nature). In 1900 engineers were heroes. Today they're widely perceived as pencil-necked geeks or corrupt servants of the overlord-class. The public's embrace of new things, of electric things and metallic things and things that glow and make noise and have whirling gears and whatnot, just isn't what it was in 1900.

Second, in 1900 there was a grass-roots desire and capacity to tinker, to buy something and to modify it, be it a new agricultural tool or grandfather clock or whatnot. Today, technology is viewed as a black-box and an impenetrable enigma. We enjoy its use, but are hardly suited to open the proverbial hood. This means that acceptance may still be possible at a consumer level, but feared and shunned at a tinkerer-level. Cobblers and blacksmiths in 1900 would likely have been enthused about cars. Sure, cars supplanted horses and destroyed horse-oriented jobs. But they were a wonderful opportunity for blacksmiths to redefine themselves as mechanics. Well, how will today's technological innovations offer comparable opportunity?

Autonomous cars are coming, but the rate of acceptance, let alone of dominance, is much overstated.
You're making the wrong correlations. Car ownership at the turn of the century was largely dependent on a growing middle class which was the result of many other factors. Most people didn't actually own horses. They went straight from walking to the car and skipped the horse completely.

A more appropriate analogy is the smartphone. 10 years ago few people had them now everybody has them. It's just a feature that doesn't require radically changing economic conditions and demographics. It's just a useful gadget.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top