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.
A human driver is still a responsible party for their vehicle and any accidents they cause. Who will be responsible when an empty car runs over a dozen kids waiting for a school bus? Until that question and many others can be answered, driverless cars shouldn't even be considered.
No, I would never support them. <>This is just another example of automobile manufacturers ramming crap down people's throats, that most people don't even want. Just like they did a hundred years ago when they forced automobiles on the public, without any regard to the congestion and pollution that would be caused by replacing every electric streetcar with 50 polluting private automobiles. So no, I will never support it.
The first cars were developed by individuals building for enthusiasts and people with a vision for the future, not big corporations. No cramming down the throat there.
As for bringing about pollution, cars actually came just in time to prevent us from being buried in horse manure from the primary means of transportation at the time.
The limitation of the electric streetcar at the beginning was the same as it ever was: A lot of walking was involved unless you lived and worked at streetcar stops.
The automobile helped that and the autonomous vehicle will do even better.
Back in the 1900s not a lot of thought was given by anyone to the long term effects of all of the technology coming along then. Today is different. Here we sit on the forum trying to hash out and understand the ramifications of a germinal technology.
Try to calm your self and enjoy the conversation.
"That's my opinion and you're entitled to it"
Empty cars won't drive around, they'll park. and there will be many less anyway.
The progression of the integration of the "driverless" car will ultimately result i what you might call the "ownerless" car. We have this extensive road system, but most of the cars* sit unused what, 22 hours a day? A car that can drive itself as a part of a transportation system can be dispatched to the next person that needs a ride instead of parking and sitting idly by in a lot or garage somewhere. They all become Uber/Lyft mobiles.
The real shock comes when we realize we need only about 50 million cars, not 250 million. There will still be the same number on the road at rush hour, but there will be little need for parking in down town. Cars can park REALLY close together if nobody has to get in and out. Traffic will operate much more efficiently with few wrecks. They can run closer together with better reflexes and go faster and pullout with less room between.
Part of my vision here minimizes the use of electric vehicles to some degree as the required range will be greater and available charge time will be reduced.
Now see this here is a problem. I prefer to own my own car. Im not going to ride in a car that some filthy person just got out of that hasn't taken a shower, or one that someone got sick in, or someone smoked in, etc... That's no better than riding in a taxi cab. No thank you. I keep my vehicles clean and they smell nice.
And note that I said vehicles(s). I own four of them. Do I need four? No, but I wanted them and I own them.
Now see this here is a problem. I prefer to own my own car. I'm not going to ride in a car that some filthy person just got out of that hasn't taken a shower, or one that someone got sick in, or someone smoked in, etc... That's no better than riding in a taxi cab. No thank you.
Yes, that is one of the issues that arises. Our cars are very personal to us. We use them for a lot more than transportation and we all want some personal space. You are right, it would be a lot like a taxicab system, but computer controlled for greater efficiency.
"But not as bad as the subway"
A human driver is still a responsible party for their vehicle and any accidents they cause. Who will be responsible when an empty car runs over a dozen kids waiting for a school bus? Until that question and many others can be answered, driverless cars shouldn't even be considered.
You are still riding a dying horse. The liability is even clearer on an autonomous vehicle than on a human driven one.
Who is responsible if the steering coupling breaks and a car runs over a dozen kids. Same as a breakdown in the programming that gets a dozen kids.
The outcome if pretty much fore ordained. As soon as autonomous demonstrate their safety the cost of insurance for human driven vehicles will begin to rise as that for autonomous drops. Within few years in will simply become too expensive for most. At that time the drums will begin to beat to get the nuisance cars off the road. After that they will become collectors items though someone will develop a retro kit so the hobbyist can keep their vehicles on the road.
Maybe in urban areas, but in smaller towns and rural areas there's not.
I live in a small town. There is a Dial a Ride service for senior and disabled persons. That is the only public transportation here. I believe most places have some similar service. If they don't they should have it. Driverless cars are not a necessity. We have done just fine without them for a hundred years. As a matter of fact, before automobiles took over, there were even better options for people who couldn't drive. So now you are trying to take a problem that automobiles created, and solve that problem with an even worse problem.
You are still riding a dying horse. The liability is even clearer on an autonomous vehicle than on a human driven one.
Who is responsible if the steering coupling breaks and a car runs over a dozen kids. Same as a breakdown in the programming that gets a dozen kids.
The outcome if pretty much fore ordained. As soon as autonomous demonstrate their safety the cost of insurance for human driven vehicles will begin to rise as that for autonomous drops. Within few years in will simply become too expensive for most. At that time the drums will begin to beat to get the nuisance cars off the road. After that they will become collectors items though someone will develop a retro kit so the hobbyist can keep their vehicles on the road.
Don't count on manufactures accepting liability. Big corporations always pay off politicians to protect their profits, from stuff like that. They will never put driverless cars on the road, until they have protection from liability.
A human driver is still a responsible party for their vehicle and any accidents they cause. Who will be responsible when an empty car runs over a dozen kids waiting for a school bus? Until that question and many others can be answered, driverless cars shouldn't even be considered.
How the **** would that happen with the array of sensors an autonomous car has? That's the goddamn POINT Of them, that they DON'T do stupid **** like that. While a drunk HUMAN driver would.
You come up with the STUPIDEST arguments against them I've seen yet. I mean, I don't want autonomous cars to take over, either, but I'm not going to be ignorant about them.
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.
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.
