[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

The problem? That 90% of those drivers will still be out there while you're in a car that can't react to one of them doing something stupid.

I'm not against robocars. I'd welcome them. I just don't think its going to take off in a rush like others seem to.

Actually I think that is how they will be introduced...anti-collision systems and backing up systems and such.

And theses systems are much better at detecting and reacting to something stupid. They pretty much watch all directions almost all the time.

It will be interesting to see how it is approached. What can the initial systems do? Brake? Brake and steer? Brake or accelerate and steer?

I would think long haul trucks are the first target. Maybe a train of a dozen led by a manned vehicle?

I would think ten years or so it should be underway.

[NLVgal]

Would that mean an end to DUI's, you think? There's a lot of money in DUIs (fees, fines, etc.) and personal injury law.

I know, I'm jaded, but "follow the money" is a good philosophy in general. We'll see what the politicians do. On a positive note for those who embrace this technology, Google was given permission to test their unmanned vehicle in Nevada a while back.

Google gets license to operate driverless cars in Nevada - CNN.com

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

Your argument fails on two counts.

No matter what you want to have happen you are going to be rudely awakened when you ask the average American to get in a car and have the car drive them some where.

Your adverse comment concerning a pilot that averted tragedy after the plane he was piloting was struck by a flock of geese makes any opinion you may put forth questionable in the least.

Tek.
Technology has a way of catching on pretty quick. iPad, iFone, anyone? Especially if it can save them time, work, and money. And, not insignificantly, their ass.[mod cut-- off topic for this thread]

[Tek_Freek]

Equating a person using an iPad to a person trusting themselves to a driverless car isn't a valid comparison.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Bruff

Tek.
Technology has a way of catching on pretty quick. iPad, iFone, anyone? Especially if it can save them time, work, and money. And, not insignificantly, their ass.
.

Uhh nonsense. One of the nice things about the robot driver is that the problem is not very complicated and there are a limited number of solutions that need to be dealt with.
[mod cut-- response to deleted material]

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Uhh nonsense. One of the nice things about the robot driver is that the problem is not very complicated and there are a limited number of solutions that need to be dealt with.

lvoc.
The thing about the bot is, first, it does not get the pucker factor that accompanies all humans and always delays their response.

[mod cut-- off topic]
The second thing about the bot, is that it always has a constantly-unfolding Plan B that would take into consideration location and inertia.

[mod cut- off topic]

When it comes down to it, driving is not, as you suggest, much simpler than flying: flying is one of the easiest things in the world. Our first astronaut was a monkey.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by NLVgal

Would that mean an end to DUI's, you think? There's a lot of money in DUIs (fees, fines, etc.) and personal injury law.

I know, I'm jaded, but "follow the money" is a good philosophy in general. We'll see what the politicians do. On a positive note for those who embrace this technology, Google was given permission to test their unmanned vehicle in Nevada a while back.

Google gets license to operate driverless cars in Nevada - CNN.com

NVLgal.
Yes, the bot would end DUI's and yes, again, there's a lot of money in that facet of driving, alone. Move to transport, where you see, with regularity, trucks on their sides or jack knifed or running into bridges, etc. Drivers today are strictly regulated with the amount of time then can be behind the wheel: imagine a scenario where the driver never gets distracted, never falls asleep, works 24/7, doesn't ***** or join unions, and doesn't even draw a salary.
The bot will also spell the end to public transit, school buses, human-driven UPS/FedX, even the USPTO.
It will be especially endorsed by the politicians - especially Mormon politicians - because they drink too.
Idaho Sen. Michael Crapo Charged With DUI - WSJ.com

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

Equating a person using an iPad to a person trusting themselves to a driverless car isn't a valid comparison.

How about this one, then. Go to McCarran and entrust your parts to the driverless shuttle. Or hop on one of the Strip's 4 driverless people movers, including the Monorail. Try a driverless elevator some time. Fly in a commercial aircraft, where 80% of the landings are driverless (autopilot). Driverless vehicles are in your life a lot more than you think.

[Tek_Freek]

The only one that remotely compares is landing a plane. The others all ride on tracks so the only decision making is stopping and starting.

And the plane while it's landing has two pilots monitoring the approach. If something goes wrong they take over.

Are we going to have limo drivers in our robocars?

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

The only one that remotely compares is landing a plane. The others all ride on tracks so the only decision making is stopping and starting.

And the plane while it's landing has two pilots monitoring the approach. If something goes wrong they take over.

Are we going to have limo drivers in our robocars?

The great advantage of a car is that it can simply stop. That, of course, is not always the right thing to do but it will be a large percentage of the time. And that is a pretty good when all else fails strategy.

As I suggested we will see this stuff implemented in pieces. Already we have blind spot control and smart cruise control. I would think it becomes a gradual thing with other capabilities added each year. Highway lane keeping may be next.

The pilots on a low visibility landing do not get to take over...they get to abort. Humans are not considered capable of performing such a maneuver. If the robot does not work you abort. And note the pilot is not really monitoring the landing...he is monitoring the auto-pilot.