Where Has All The Pork Gone??
Discussion
You are right cmoose in that the automaton tech is out there. It is possible to put the infrastructure in place and run these things.
However, I still think its 20 years minimum away, and even then it will only be allowed in certain controlled conditions eg a barriered off lane on the motorway.
There are 5 reasons why I believe this;
1 - public acceptance. Fear and loss of freedoms etc
2 - political will. Why do it?
3 - the huge cost.
4 - Legislative changes required
5 - liabilities and insurance. Whos fault will the inevitable accidents be? The car maker, the road, the council, the failed GPS connection, the weather?
I just dont think there is enough will to get over some of the huge barriers.
However, I still think its 20 years minimum away, and even then it will only be allowed in certain controlled conditions eg a barriered off lane on the motorway.
There are 5 reasons why I believe this;
1 - public acceptance. Fear and loss of freedoms etc
2 - political will. Why do it?
3 - the huge cost.
4 - Legislative changes required
5 - liabilities and insurance. Whos fault will the inevitable accidents be? The car maker, the road, the council, the failed GPS connection, the weather?
I just dont think there is enough will to get over some of the huge barriers.
Heres some guys testing Volvos auto brakes. It went well.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_8nnhUCtcO8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_8nnhUCtcO8
Wozy68 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why you can't see that a great 'idea' and large investment might not come to fruition beggers belief.We will see. You may ridicule me, but we will see in fifteen years from now where we are. Then we will know for sure just how we are or not driving cars on our roads.
They already can..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=33&v=DeWriarFl...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I work on practicalities. Remember the Ford Escort with still the CVH engine of the early nineties, the 5.2 turns lock to lock steering and the then 1 billion investment in it as a 'peoples' car. All based on what the general public wanted?
5 years? We will see.
IMI A said:
Drive the wheels off your 993 Wozy whilst you can mate. I'm certainly going to do the same. Technology is moving at a frightening pace. My wife's car in a few situations drives itself. By way of example on the motorway and also when it needs to be parked. The tech in it is mind boggling. This is only going one way and whatever you say about fossil fuels everyone has to concede that its a finite resource. UK is light years ahead of most societies and will always set trends. 10 years. Watch this space re electric cars....Robots will be up to the purchasers maybe but cars will be able to drive themselves there is no doubt about that...
They already can..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=33&v=DeWriarFl...
They already can..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=33&v=DeWriarFl...
Suddenly I might just be starting to realise I'm not in the majority. What a sad state of affairs
mollytherocker said:
You are right cmoose in that the automaton tech is out there. It is possible to put the infrastructure in place and run these things.
However, I still think its 20 years minimum away, and even then it will only be allowed in certain controlled conditions eg a barriered off lane on the motorway.
There are 5 reasons why I believe this;
1 - public acceptance. Fear and loss of freedoms etc
2 - political will. Why do it?
3 - the huge cost.
4 - Legislative changes required
5 - liabilities and insurance. Whos fault will the inevitable accidents be? The car maker, the road, the council, the failed GPS connection, the weather?
I just don't think there is enough will to get over some of the huge barriers.
You can see the likes of Google testing their cars. The crashes these have had are when a human driven car has hit it.However, I still think its 20 years minimum away, and even then it will only be allowed in certain controlled conditions eg a barriered off lane on the motorway.
There are 5 reasons why I believe this;
1 - public acceptance. Fear and loss of freedoms etc
2 - political will. Why do it?
3 - the huge cost.
4 - Legislative changes required
5 - liabilities and insurance. Whos fault will the inevitable accidents be? The car maker, the road, the council, the failed GPS connection, the weather?
I just don't think there is enough will to get over some of the huge barriers.
Have you seen the pent up demand for Tesla cars? They're impressive and people like Tech like Apple etc.
What's not to like about a driverless car which takes you to work, the station, a night out etc it will make everyday life less stressful for those who don't really enjoy driving.
Why do it. People will benefit, getting to your destination would be more efficient, governments will benefit from the efficiency and companies who will make money will lobby and pay the government to make it happen.
Yes there will still be accidents as we can't stop natural disasters e.g. landslides etc.
You just have to look around to see how tech products and services are changing our lives to understand it's happening.
Early adopters will be driverless in 3-5 years. The mainstream will follow by 10 years.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think we can agree that automated cars will probably have fewer accidents and kill less people. Probably.The problem for me is handing over the control of my daughters safety to google. I'd rather her sit in the front of my 993 without a seatbelt, with me giving it the beans. Unless of course there are automated cars coming the other way.
I know how crazy that sounds, but this is the type of phycology at play here.
mollytherocker said:
I think we can agree that automated cars will probably have fewer accidents and kill less people. Probably.
This is the elephant in the room. I have no doubt that the incidence of error with an automated system can be shown to be magnitudes smaller than with humans driving. But, all systems fail. There will still be errors of various types and consequences from them. And the blame in the case of an automated system will lie firmly at the manufacturer. This stands in stark contrast to the current norm.
What price a family of four, both financially and criminally in terms of the aftermath, and in any trust in the automated system going forward - no matter how safe it can be shown through statistics in comparison to alternatives.
I can't see it happening myself, but I also remember being shown the internet for the first time and thinking "yeah ok then!"
Of course its become much more colourful since those days.
fioran0 said:
mollytherocker said:
I think we can agree that automated cars will probably have fewer accidents and kill less people. Probably.
This is the elephant in the room. I have no doubt that the incidence of error with an automated system can be shown to be magnitudes smaller than with humans driving. But, all systems fail. There will still be errors of various types and consequences from them. And the blame in the case of an automated system will lie firmly at the manufacturer. This stands in stark contrast to the current norm.
What price a family of four, both financially and criminally in terms of the aftermath, and in any trust in the automated system going forward - no matter how safe it can be shown through statistics in comparison to alternatives.
I can't see it happening myself, but I also remember being shown the internet for the first time and thinking "yeah ok then!"
Of course its become much more colourful since those days.
I get all of that cmoose, I really do, but the comparison with planes is not equivalent. They are kept miles away from each other in defined lanes and supervised by humans. Cars are 10000000's more in number and in close proximity. And theres snow and errant swans and suicidal people jumping off bridges and fallen trees etc etc.
The number of variables are so infinite as to be incalcuable. And what about the other vehicles on the roads that wont be automated. Like big f
k off trucks with tired drivers. Or are we suggesting a big bang? Thats impossible!
A family of 5 is driving in auto along the motorway at 70. Its early morning, the sun is low and powerful. Its a hot day. A white barn owl flies down towards the car. The car in front of it is pearlescent white. There are reflections, strange mirror effects against the sun. The car doesnt 'see' the owl. Its actually programmed to run animals over if it sees them. The GPS signal is weak and dropping out.
Suddently, at 10ft, a number of factors clash. The light, the reflections, the owl, the car senses that the car in front is getting closer it brakes hard.
The tired driver in the 5 year old 44 tonne truck behind slams on, it cant stop in time, the driver swerves away from the car into the second lane.
Carnage ensues. A pile up of huge proportions, there are many deaths.
The cars black boxes are downloaded. The familys car has followed its software correctly, the arguments begin. Who is at fault? Could Google have envisaged such a set of circumstances, should they?
There are witnesses that saw the owl and couldnt overide their cars quickly enough. The view is that a human would have acted differently, lives would not have been lost.
This is one scenario typed quickly by a fool. There are 135 billion other scenarios. Will google cover them all?
Computers are not even 1% of the capacity of the human brain. They are stupid. They do what they are told within a set of parameters that we give them.
And relax.....
The number of variables are so infinite as to be incalcuable. And what about the other vehicles on the roads that wont be automated. Like big f
k off trucks with tired drivers. Or are we suggesting a big bang? Thats impossible!A family of 5 is driving in auto along the motorway at 70. Its early morning, the sun is low and powerful. Its a hot day. A white barn owl flies down towards the car. The car in front of it is pearlescent white. There are reflections, strange mirror effects against the sun. The car doesnt 'see' the owl. Its actually programmed to run animals over if it sees them. The GPS signal is weak and dropping out.
Suddently, at 10ft, a number of factors clash. The light, the reflections, the owl, the car senses that the car in front is getting closer it brakes hard.
The tired driver in the 5 year old 44 tonne truck behind slams on, it cant stop in time, the driver swerves away from the car into the second lane.
Carnage ensues. A pile up of huge proportions, there are many deaths.
The cars black boxes are downloaded. The familys car has followed its software correctly, the arguments begin. Who is at fault? Could Google have envisaged such a set of circumstances, should they?
There are witnesses that saw the owl and couldnt overide their cars quickly enough. The view is that a human would have acted differently, lives would not have been lost.
This is one scenario typed quickly by a fool. There are 135 billion other scenarios. Will google cover them all?
Computers are not even 1% of the capacity of the human brain. They are stupid. They do what they are told within a set of parameters that we give them.
And relax.....
Edited by mollytherocker on Saturday 20th June 20:41
Edited by mollytherocker on Saturday 20th June 20:44
mollytherocker said:
I get all of that cmoose, I really do, but the comparison with planes is not equivalent. They are kept miles away from each other in defined lanes and supervised by humans. Cars are 10000000's more in number and in close proximity. And theres snow and errant swans and suicidal people jumping off bridges and fallen trees etc etc.
The number of variables are so infinite as to be incalcuable. And what about the other vehicles on the roads that wont be automated. Like big fk off trucks with tired drivers. Or are we suggesting a big bang? Thats impossible!
A family of 5 is driving in auto along the motorway at 70. Its early morning, the sun is low and powerful. Its a hot day. A white barn owl flies down towards the car. The car in front of it is pearlescent white. There are reflections, strange mirror effects against the sun. The car doesnt 'see' the owl. Its actually programmed to run animals over if it sees them. The GPS signal is weak and dropping out.
Suddently, at 10ft, a number of factors clash. The light, the reflections, the owl, the car senses that the car in front is getting closer it brakes hard.
The tired driver in the 5 year old 44 tonne truck behind slams on, it cant stop in time, the driver swerves away from the car into the second lane.
Carnage ensues. A pile up of huge proportions, there are many deaths.
The cars black boxes are downloaded. The familys car has followed its software correctly, the arguments begin. Who is at fault? Could Google have envisaged such a set of circumstances, should they?
There are witnesses that saw the owl and couldnt overide their cars quickly enough. The view is that a human would have acted differently, lives would not have been lost.
This is one scenario typed quickly by a fool. There are 135 billion other scenarios. Will google cover them all?
Computers are not even 1% of the capacity of the human brain. They are stupid. They do what they are told within a set of parameters that we give them.
And relax.....
I see you're struggling with this molly! The number of variables are so infinite as to be incalcuable. And what about the other vehicles on the roads that wont be automated. Like big f
k off trucks with tired drivers. Or are we suggesting a big bang? Thats impossible!A family of 5 is driving in auto along the motorway at 70. Its early morning, the sun is low and powerful. Its a hot day. A white barn owl flies down towards the car. The car in front of it is pearlescent white. There are reflections, strange mirror effects against the sun. The car doesnt 'see' the owl. Its actually programmed to run animals over if it sees them. The GPS signal is weak and dropping out.
Suddently, at 10ft, a number of factors clash. The light, the reflections, the owl, the car senses that the car in front is getting closer it brakes hard.
The tired driver in the 5 year old 44 tonne truck behind slams on, it cant stop in time, the driver swerves away from the car into the second lane.
Carnage ensues. A pile up of huge proportions, there are many deaths.
The cars black boxes are downloaded. The familys car has followed its software correctly, the arguments begin. Who is at fault? Could Google have envisaged such a set of circumstances, should they?
There are witnesses that saw the owl and couldnt overide their cars quickly enough. The view is that a human would have acted differently, lives would not have been lost.
This is one scenario typed quickly by a fool. There are 135 billion other scenarios. Will google cover them all?
Computers are not even 1% of the capacity of the human brain. They are stupid. They do what they are told within a set of parameters that we give them.
And relax.....
Edited by mollytherocker on Saturday 20th June 20:41
Edited by mollytherocker on Saturday 20th June 20:44
The owl example was meant to be ridiculous, i did say it was written by a fool!
But guess what, ridiculous things happen every second of every day. I agree that the number of deaths would be reduced, that is not in question.
What I am trying to allude to is the barriers to implementation created by the difficulties in covering off and agreeing liabilities and therefore insurance.
There are huge legislative challenges that will have to be resolved. And governments aren't too speedy at that sort of thing.
I think your suggestion of 5 years is silly at best.
But guess what, ridiculous things happen every second of every day. I agree that the number of deaths would be reduced, that is not in question.
What I am trying to allude to is the barriers to implementation created by the difficulties in covering off and agreeing liabilities and therefore insurance.
There are huge legislative challenges that will have to be resolved. And governments aren't too speedy at that sort of thing.
I think your suggestion of 5 years is silly at best.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I agree with your last sentence as I have said. You may well have more info on this than me, and I will try and take that into account.I just think you are under estimating the journey that needs to be completed in 5 years.
I am happy to say now that there is no chance. Not even in 10 years.
But hey, what do I know. I am just a keen observer. We shall see.
Gassing Station | Porsche Classics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff