Google gets a driverless licence
Discussion
and you thought EV cars were the end. Johhny cab has arrived.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17989553
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17989553
All this talk of 'human error' reminds me of HAL's justification for killing all the astronauts in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm also reminded of Westworld, where nothing can possibly go wrong. Go wrong. Go wrong. Go wrong. Go wrong...
Thing is, computers in cars do go wrong, as does everything else. ECUs get damp, microswitches wear out, fuses blow, contacts tarnish - it's all a part of everyday wear and tear and it's inevitable. The reason why our home PCs don't die on us more regularly is because we don't tend to keep them outside in the rain or drive them to work every day.
So, while this stuff works now, what'll happen when it fails? Will the car just stop dead in the traffic stream? In which case whose fault is it, legally, if someone else hits it from behind. Or the sensors break and it can't 'see' anything in front of it regardless. Whose fault is it if it ploughs on into a bus queue? It's not like autopilot on a plane, because when that fails, there's a pilot to take over, plus planes are serviced much more thoroughly than cars.
Thing is, computers in cars do go wrong, as does everything else. ECUs get damp, microswitches wear out, fuses blow, contacts tarnish - it's all a part of everyday wear and tear and it's inevitable. The reason why our home PCs don't die on us more regularly is because we don't tend to keep them outside in the rain or drive them to work every day.
So, while this stuff works now, what'll happen when it fails? Will the car just stop dead in the traffic stream? In which case whose fault is it, legally, if someone else hits it from behind. Or the sensors break and it can't 'see' anything in front of it regardless. Whose fault is it if it ploughs on into a bus queue? It's not like autopilot on a plane, because when that fails, there's a pilot to take over, plus planes are serviced much more thoroughly than cars.
Hmmmm....on the plus side, this will be taken up by those who do not find driving interesting, and those with no interest tend to be the dreary, dopey dawdlers with a capacity to do the startling. - Presumably this will hustle along at the speed limit?
The one disadvantage, will it be intelligent enough to anticipate and allow for a car approaching from behind and pressing on?
The one disadvantage, will it be intelligent enough to anticipate and allow for a car approaching from behind and pressing on?
Vocal Minority said:
Hmmmm....on the plus side, this will be taken up by those who do not find driving interesting, and those with no interest tend to be the dreary, dopey dawdlers with a capacity to do the startling. - Presumably this will hustle along at the speed limit?
The one disadvantage, will it be intelligent enough to anticipate and allow for a car approaching from behind and pressing on?
One disadvantage?The one disadvantage, will it be intelligent enough to anticipate and allow for a car approaching from behind and pressing on?
Quite apart from the ones I've outlined above (put that much trust in technology, leave no manual override, what happens when it goes wrong?), what about the inevitable government response?
-Driverless tech is seen to reduce accidents.
-Governments see this too.
-EU decides that elements of this should be incorporated into all new cars from date x, and that you 'can't argue' against its benefits.
-Insurance companies cotton onto this, putting premiums through the roof for anyone who still chooses to do the driving themselves.
-The act of driving becomes even more 'socially unacceptable' than it already is, people choosing to drive cars themselves being seen as reckless child-murderers with something to prove. Cue Daily Mail headlines etc.
...and before you know it, 'convenience' has sown the seeds for the death of our favoured pastime.
AcidReflux said:
veryRS said:
Fantastic. Now people can legally sleep on the drive to work/shops/school run.
Yep. I can't wait. Seriously.I'd happily hand control over to R2D2 for those few miles.
Judging by the article there was a humanoid to take control if things failed. I think it's a long way off from an incapacitated driver being driven home legally but it is a start for efficient mass transport.
It's not that different to a plane going on autopilot for a bit, will make the motorway slog less boring if you're able to play Angry Birds or watch a film!
It's not that different to a plane going on autopilot for a bit, will make the motorway slog less boring if you're able to play Angry Birds or watch a film!
zcacogp said:
Article said:
Nevada changed its laws to allow self-driven cars in March. The long-term plan is to license members of the public to drive such cars.
Anyone else struggle to understand that sentence? Oli.
Vantagefan said:
Judging by the article there was a humanoid to take control if things failed. I think it's a long way off from an incapacitated driver being driven home legally but it is a start for efficient mass transport.
It's not that different to a plane going on autopilot for a bit, will make the motorway slog less boring if you're able to play Angry Birds or watch a film!
Thing is, planes don't get stuck nose to tail in queues with other planes. They don't have the minor accidents cars do. If a plane crashes, everyone dies and there's a huge investigation into what caused it.It's not that different to a plane going on autopilot for a bit, will make the motorway slog less boring if you're able to play Angry Birds or watch a film!
But cars do have accidents. Even if these things are programmed to avoid them, that's no guarantee of absolute fallibility. Also, what if one swerves to avoid hitting something, but its evasive action causes another motorist to crash into something? Who's at fault there?
It makes sense in the world of technology, robots and computers, but in the real world of passionate drivers, chaotic roads, minor accidents, claims companies, whiplash (there's a thought - if this thing slammed its brakes on extremely hard to avoid hitting something, could it give its passengers whiplash, causing the passengers/ambulance chasers to try and sue their own car?) and crash-for-cash schemes, it's a legal nightmare.
Two things.
Why did they build it into a Pious? For heaven's sake, it should have been a Corvette at least, or for relevance in the USA a Ford F150...
Secondly. It will be at least twenty years after cars can safely and legally drive the kids to school before you can pass out intoxicated on the back seat to be driven home and not be prosecuted for drunk in charge. Such is the difference in pace between technology and the law. It's a shame as replacing the beer scooter is probably the biggest selling point of these cars.
Why did they build it into a Pious? For heaven's sake, it should have been a Corvette at least, or for relevance in the USA a Ford F150...
Secondly. It will be at least twenty years after cars can safely and legally drive the kids to school before you can pass out intoxicated on the back seat to be driven home and not be prosecuted for drunk in charge. Such is the difference in pace between technology and the law. It's a shame as replacing the beer scooter is probably the biggest selling point of these cars.
CDP said:
Secondly. It will be at least twenty years after cars can safely and legally drive the kids to school before you can pass out intoxicated on the back seat to be driven home and not be prosecuted for drunk in charge. Such is the difference in pace between technology and the law. It's a shame as replacing the beer scooter is probably the biggest selling point of these cars.
That's the only good point, and it's not like that task isn't performed admirably by As TC says, what happens when it breaks? Any driver is going to be even further de-skilled than they are now and unable to deal with an emergency.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff