Driverless Cars - Something Is Rotten In Denmark
Discussion
I was unfortunate enough to stumble across this podcast from the BBC World Service. "SciA: 30 Oct 14: Driverless Cars Special" on Mixcloud http://www.mixcloud.com/ScienceinAction/scia-30-oc...
I am all for new technology but never I have I seen it talked about in such definite terms.
For example there is not one single objection to the statement (that is constantly repeated) that driverless cars will stop ALL of the fatalities on the roads that are caused by human error while implying driverless cars will be perfect.
There is no way to know what will happen because driverless cars have never been used on the road in any meaningful way.
Whenever an argument is made with bold claims that have absolutely no substance alarm bells start ringing.
Obviously we are not talking about the concrete benefits of the concept here because there is no evidence, so why the enthusiasm for driverless cars and why the lies to push it?
I am all for new technology but never I have I seen it talked about in such definite terms.
For example there is not one single objection to the statement (that is constantly repeated) that driverless cars will stop ALL of the fatalities on the roads that are caused by human error while implying driverless cars will be perfect.
There is no way to know what will happen because driverless cars have never been used on the road in any meaningful way.
Whenever an argument is made with bold claims that have absolutely no substance alarm bells start ringing.
Obviously we are not talking about the concrete benefits of the concept here because there is no evidence, so why the enthusiasm for driverless cars and why the lies to push it?
Driverless cars are a brilliant idea; all junctions will this just like this, right...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfSTKSz5SHc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfSTKSz5SHc
Pete Eroleum said:
Don't worry it hasn't happened yet.
Most passenger aircraft are perfectly capable of flying themselves, and have multiple levels of redundancy.
Even so, they haven't done away with the pilots yet for some reason. I wonder why.
Because it's hard work training all the dogs.Most passenger aircraft are perfectly capable of flying themselves, and have multiple levels of redundancy.
Even so, they haven't done away with the pilots yet for some reason. I wonder why.
Not going to happen anytime soon. They just can't cope with the unexpected. Even something as simple as temporary traffic lights or something that's not in it's map and they will throw a wobbly.
I can see "road trains" (semi driverless) and driverless on motorways, potentially to the point where you aren't allowed manual control though....
Except motorways are already our safest roads.
I can see "road trains" (semi driverless) and driverless on motorways, potentially to the point where you aren't allowed manual control though....
Except motorways are already our safest roads.
The aircraft analogy is pretty good, the majority of the time the aircraft could operate completely autonomously and the pilots rarely earn their pay, however there have been plenty of incidents where the pilots truly have earned their pay and saved a lot of lives. Unsure how that compares to the number of lives lost due to pilot error though.
However both the opportunity for it to go wrong and the consequences are a lot less for cars, and presumably virtually all car crashes are human error. The interesting thing will be where there is a fatality with a driverless car, who will get the blame and will everyone immediately declare driverless cars unsafe after one accident?
However both the opportunity for it to go wrong and the consequences are a lot less for cars, and presumably virtually all car crashes are human error. The interesting thing will be where there is a fatality with a driverless car, who will get the blame and will everyone immediately declare driverless cars unsafe after one accident?
RizzoTheRat said:
The aircraft analogy is pretty good, the majority of the time the aircraft could operate completely autonomously and the pilots rarely earn their pay, however there have been plenty of incidents where the pilots truly have earned their pay and saved a lot of lives. Unsure how that compares to the number of lives lost due to pilot error though.
However both the opportunity for it to go wrong and the consequences are a lot less for cars, and presumably virtually all car crashes are human error. The interesting thing will be where there is a fatality with a driverless car, who will get the blame and will everyone immediately declare driverless cars unsafe after one accident?
software wise thou flying an aircraft from A - B is vastly simpler than controlling a car because aircraft have their own bubble of safe space (about half a mile radius?) cars have 100s if not 1000s of variable to negotiate every second from worn road markings, temp lights, random pedestrians, unexpected objects in the road etcHowever both the opportunity for it to go wrong and the consequences are a lot less for cars, and presumably virtually all car crashes are human error. The interesting thing will be where there is a fatality with a driverless car, who will get the blame and will everyone immediately declare driverless cars unsafe after one accident?
Dave Hedgehog said:
aircraft have their own bubble of safe space (about half a mile radius?)
No they don't. They have (sometimes) air traffic controllers who will apply separation minima to keep aircraft apart. There's no radius, just varying horizontal and/or vertical distances or time spacings that can be applied. Most commercial aircraft will have a Traffic Collision Avoidance System that will give pilots instructions to try to prevent an imminent collision. Neither of these is a bubble of safety.
Aviation is a more controlled environment than driving, but it still ain't simple.
Edited by Prawo Jazdy on Thursday 6th November 15:51
Dave Hedgehog said:
software wise thou flying an aircraft from A - B is vastly simpler than controlling a car because aircraft have their own bubble of safe space (about half a mile radius?) cars have 100s if not 1000s of variable to negotiate every second from worn road markings, temp lights, random pedestrians, unexpected objects in the road etc
Indeed. And that's with all those very, very expensive redundant systems in case something fails.By the time you've fitted all that stuff to a private car, who's going to be able to afford it?
Maybe they'll get around it by saying a sober qualified driver must still supervise, but woe betide anyone
that tries to take control unless they have irrefutable evidence with at least 10 different dash cams and 12 independant witnesses that it was necessary or else it's life imprisonment.
That way they get to introduce a vote-winning policy while passing the buck on to the driver if anything goes wrong.
Win win.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff