Driverless Cars- What do we think
Discussion
This is going to probably sound daft, but could this leave the potential for cyber car theft?
For example, your fully autonomous car comes to pick you up from work, whilst on its way, someone hacks into its software and steals it? Also cars to be hacked into and off of peoples driveways? Could that happen, or am I just nuts?
For example, your fully autonomous car comes to pick you up from work, whilst on its way, someone hacks into its software and steals it? Also cars to be hacked into and off of peoples driveways? Could that happen, or am I just nuts?
otolith said:
You can do that now!
I can certainly see autonomous cars making taxi drivers redundant, but I think people will still continue to want to own them. For many people, car ownership is about more than driving or even about having to wait for a cab to turn up. For many it's a personal space and a status symbol.
True. Very true, and now I see the idiocy of my comment quite clearly. I can certainly see autonomous cars making taxi drivers redundant, but I think people will still continue to want to own them. For many people, car ownership is about more than driving or even about having to wait for a cab to turn up. For many it's a personal space and a status symbol.
But that is just the way we see things at the moment. Things change.
Dave Hedgehog said:
You have to love PR 
The google cars have been running in a small area which has been extensivly 3D mapped and as is near perfect and stable conditions for a driver less car as possible
Get a few to cover all of london, the first AL taxi it comes across will have it into a wall
True, again true. I was thinking of a combination of Mercedes and Google. The google cars have been running in a small area which has been extensivly 3D mapped and as is near perfect and stable conditions for a driver less car as possibleGet a few to cover all of london, the first AL taxi it comes across will have it into a wall
Edited by Dave Hedgehog on Thursday 16th April 13:05
Given the amount of numpties that manage to crash on perfectly straight motorways, resulting in massive holdups for everyone else, I quite like the idea of getting those who aren't interested in driving in to driverless cars so they can look at their phones without risking anyone else.
TheForceV4 said:
This is going to probably sound daft, but could this leave the potential for cyber car theft?
For example, your fully autonomous car comes to pick you up from work, whilst on its way, someone hacks into its software and steals it? Also cars to be hacked into and off of peoples driveways? Could that happen, or am I just nuts?
You're not taking that one far enough, it'd be a great low risk way to kidnap someone or steal a Brinks truck For example, your fully autonomous car comes to pick you up from work, whilst on its way, someone hacks into its software and steals it? Also cars to be hacked into and off of peoples driveways? Could that happen, or am I just nuts?
There is definitely a time and place for a driverless car.
Who the f
k enjoys sitting stuck in traffic when you could kick back and have a read whilst the car drives itself. You can always turn if off when you want to have a little hoon.
There is no doubt that it's the future, it's just a question of when. I will never give up my own wheels, if only for a quick weekend blast, but I am definitely ready to embrace a driverless car when the technology is mature enough for mass market.
1. No more sitting in traffic bored out of your mind, kick back, watch a movie, read a book.
2. Long distance driving suddenly becomes much more feasable.
3. Speeds should increase, as the reliability and safety of these systems is superior, fully automated motorways for example could operate at much higher speeds.
4. Convoy driving, it's been shown that driving in convoy can vastly reduce the fuel economy, automated systems would be able to form up and save you fuel.
5. Traffic management: with fully automated cars that are aware, huge traffic jams will be much less likely to occur. Cars behind a large tailback would automatically slow down, reducing start/stop and increasing fuel economy/brake life.
Who the f
k enjoys sitting stuck in traffic when you could kick back and have a read whilst the car drives itself. You can always turn if off when you want to have a little hoon.There is no doubt that it's the future, it's just a question of when. I will never give up my own wheels, if only for a quick weekend blast, but I am definitely ready to embrace a driverless car when the technology is mature enough for mass market.
1. No more sitting in traffic bored out of your mind, kick back, watch a movie, read a book.
2. Long distance driving suddenly becomes much more feasable.
3. Speeds should increase, as the reliability and safety of these systems is superior, fully automated motorways for example could operate at much higher speeds.
4. Convoy driving, it's been shown that driving in convoy can vastly reduce the fuel economy, automated systems would be able to form up and save you fuel.
5. Traffic management: with fully automated cars that are aware, huge traffic jams will be much less likely to occur. Cars behind a large tailback would automatically slow down, reducing start/stop and increasing fuel economy/brake life.
NASA's attempt:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/nasas-new-car-self-d...
I'm not sure about the looks, but it'll be able to 'drift' for miles
Oatmeal's opinion
http://uk.businessinsider.com/nasas-new-car-self-d...
I'm not sure about the looks, but it'll be able to 'drift' for miles
Oatmeal's opinion
Edited by xRIEx on Thursday 16th April 14:10
Does anyone think they will get bullied and not actually get that far, like an old dear from a village first time in central London?
I can't help but think they will be so safe and have such a margin for error built in that some people will just pull out on them and the car will avoid any collision as long as thats possible. Similarly when pulling out of a junction unless there's a massive gap the car won't go for it leaving them and many others sat there all day.
Same as motorways, if you follow the governments advice on three ^ markings between cars you will never get anywhere as someone is always diving in the gap.
I can see them working in some instances but can't think they will work in big cities or busy motorways unless there are lanes purely dedicated to driverless cars.
I can't help but think they will be so safe and have such a margin for error built in that some people will just pull out on them and the car will avoid any collision as long as thats possible. Similarly when pulling out of a junction unless there's a massive gap the car won't go for it leaving them and many others sat there all day.
Same as motorways, if you follow the governments advice on three ^ markings between cars you will never get anywhere as someone is always diving in the gap.
I can see them working in some instances but can't think they will work in big cities or busy motorways unless there are lanes purely dedicated to driverless cars.
My QQ already tells me when I am about to crash, and if I have drifted over a white line without indicating. It's not a big step to tell it to stay in the white lines, and follow the car in front, and from then a short step to "just get me home while I have a nap"
I welcome the OPTION of not driving.
I welcome the OPTION of not driving.
Mafffew said:
jdw1234 said:
Will the cars emergency stop if someone walks in front of one?
If so, I can imagine the fun and games kids will come up with on busy roads.
I can imagine it now. A line of kids jumping out at intervals forcing the car to jerk to a stop! If so, I can imagine the fun and games kids will come up with on busy roads.
if baseballhat plus stupid trousers then ramming speed
Steve Benson said:
Does anyone think they will get bullied and not actually get that far, like an old dear from a village first time in central London?
I can't help but think they will be so safe and have such a margin for error built in that some people will just pull out on them and the car will avoid any collision as long as thats possible. Similarly when pulling out of a junction unless there's a massive gap the car won't go for it leaving them and many others sat there all day.
Same as motorways, if you follow the governments advice on three ^ markings between cars you will never get anywhere as someone is always diving in the gap.
I can see them working in some instances but can't think they will work in big cities or busy motorways unless there are lanes purely dedicated to driverless cars.
Quite the opposite problem I reckon. They will drive nose-to-tail because they don't need the massive reaction gaps which humans do. This has been trialed some years back, as it's a great wheeze for increasing road capacity without investing in any more roads. My worry is that they will drive so close together that there will be no chance of overtaking them.I can't help but think they will be so safe and have such a margin for error built in that some people will just pull out on them and the car will avoid any collision as long as thats possible. Similarly when pulling out of a junction unless there's a massive gap the car won't go for it leaving them and many others sat there all day.
Same as motorways, if you follow the governments advice on three ^ markings between cars you will never get anywhere as someone is always diving in the gap.
I can see them working in some instances but can't think they will work in big cities or busy motorways unless there are lanes purely dedicated to driverless cars.
CrutyRammers said:
Steve Benson said:
Does anyone think they will get bullied and not actually get that far, like an old dear from a village first time in central London?
I can't help but think they will be so safe and have such a margin for error built in that some people will just pull out on them and the car will avoid any collision as long as thats possible. Similarly when pulling out of a junction unless there's a massive gap the car won't go for it leaving them and many others sat there all day.
Same as motorways, if you follow the governments advice on three ^ markings between cars you will never get anywhere as someone is always diving in the gap.
I can see them working in some instances but can't think they will work in big cities or busy motorways unless there are lanes purely dedicated to driverless cars.
Quite the opposite problem I reckon. They will drive nose-to-tail because they don't need the massive reaction gaps which humans do. This has been trialed some years back, as it's a great wheeze for increasing road capacity without investing in any more roads. My worry is that they will drive so close together that there will be no chance of overtaking them.I can't help but think they will be so safe and have such a margin for error built in that some people will just pull out on them and the car will avoid any collision as long as thats possible. Similarly when pulling out of a junction unless there's a massive gap the car won't go for it leaving them and many others sat there all day.
Same as motorways, if you follow the governments advice on three ^ markings between cars you will never get anywhere as someone is always diving in the gap.
I can see them working in some instances but can't think they will work in big cities or busy motorways unless there are lanes purely dedicated to driverless cars.
Had a similar discussion about driverless cars before on another forum (pretty sure it wasn't here).
Something that was brought up, is how do driverless cars calculate risk? They can't think, they can only make decisions based on logical inputs.
Therefore, imagine a situation where you are on a multi lane road and an accident is imminent due to an obstruction in your lane. The car's brakes have failed. The choice comes down to:
A) Swerve into the other lane. Decrease risk to the driver, but increased risk of injury/death to other road users.
B) Swerve into a busy pavement. As above, but increased risk to pedestrians.
C) Maintain course.
I think most people would weigh up the risk and choose option A and hope for the best.
But how would a computer decide between these 3 situations? One assumes it would be programmed to choose the option that is probable to cause the fewest human casualties.
In which case, would it calculate that option C is the logical choice and plough into the obstruction regardless? As the only life as certain risk is yours, would your car happily sacrifice you to ensure the lowest probability of human casualties? Rather than taking a risk that might not guarantee other people are hurt, but will certainly increase your own chance of survival.
I know it's a bit of a silly hypothetical. But quite an interesting question....how do you sell a car controlled y an entity which might well kill you for the greater good?
Something that was brought up, is how do driverless cars calculate risk? They can't think, they can only make decisions based on logical inputs.
Therefore, imagine a situation where you are on a multi lane road and an accident is imminent due to an obstruction in your lane. The car's brakes have failed. The choice comes down to:
A) Swerve into the other lane. Decrease risk to the driver, but increased risk of injury/death to other road users.
B) Swerve into a busy pavement. As above, but increased risk to pedestrians.
C) Maintain course.
I think most people would weigh up the risk and choose option A and hope for the best.
But how would a computer decide between these 3 situations? One assumes it would be programmed to choose the option that is probable to cause the fewest human casualties.
In which case, would it calculate that option C is the logical choice and plough into the obstruction regardless? As the only life as certain risk is yours, would your car happily sacrifice you to ensure the lowest probability of human casualties? Rather than taking a risk that might not guarantee other people are hurt, but will certainly increase your own chance of survival.
I know it's a bit of a silly hypothetical. But quite an interesting question....how do you sell a car controlled y an entity which might well kill you for the greater good?
Conscript said:
I know it's a bit of a silly hypothetical. But quite an interesting question....how do you sell a car controlled y an entity which might well kill you for the greater good?
To be fair that kid on the pavement might be a boy genius 
Seriously though, it's one of the reasons why I don't see driverless cars being put on the roads any time soon. Not to mention how unpredictable it would be mixing driverless and regular cars onto the same road.
People come up with convoluted scenarios to force the car to face some kind of moral dilemma - but we're talking about highly deterministic systems, not AI, and we're usually putting them into hypotheticals that they would be designed not to get themselves into in the first place.
In the case of approaching hazard, brakes have failed, no clear space to move into, it will hit the hazard while executing whatever protocol it is programmed to do in case of brake failure - probably slowing through the gears. If it can avoid it without hitting anything else, it will. It is unlikely to be programmed to leave the road under any circumstances. It is unlikely to be programmed to calculate probabilities. Probably best to maintain your brakes properly.
In the case of approaching hazard, brakes have failed, no clear space to move into, it will hit the hazard while executing whatever protocol it is programmed to do in case of brake failure - probably slowing through the gears. If it can avoid it without hitting anything else, it will. It is unlikely to be programmed to leave the road under any circumstances. It is unlikely to be programmed to calculate probabilities. Probably best to maintain your brakes properly.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff