[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 111 KB, 575x478, i don't need no driver.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5093380 No.5093380 [Reply] [Original]

Oh yeah baby.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-26/google-s-driverless-cars-permitted-by-new-california-law

>> No.5093383

How does it handle in situations where other people are being fucking retarded on the road?

If someone drives into my lane, what does the car do?

>> No.5093388

>>5093383
I doubt the computer reaction time is inferior to that of a human.
Statistics will demonstrate that accidents of driverless cars are near 0, encouraging politicians to establish a tax to drive cars yourself.

>> No.5093393

>>5093388
>encouraging politicians to establish a tax to drive cars yourself.
ugh

There already is one isn't there? My DL cost like 30 bucks

>> No.5093402

I wonder.
Does it stop when the police are behind it flashing their lights and telling it to pull over?

>> No.5093403

As a guy who afraid of driving cars but not riding them, I am glad this is happening.

Too bad our dependence on oil makes this useless. Not gonna last forever...

>> No.5093405

>>5093388
That's exactly what we need.
A tax on people who already can't afford to buy the product which lets them avoid the tax.

>> No.5093409

I'm all for it. Most drivers are terrible. I'm just as terrible as most, but perhaps more willing to acknowledge that this is a feat that would be much more aptly performed by a machine. Let the car drive while I read, play pokémon or jack off all of which are more rewarding than driving. Driving is bullshit.

>> No.5093418

>>5093388

Does anyone benefit from smearing google? If so, and if they've got media or political allies, prepare to hear about every single crash a google car was involved in, until the public is as afraid of them as marijuana or video games or the internet.

>> No.5093483

>>5093380
Waiting for the zero-day exploit that lets me drive a car remotely via google maps.

>> No.5093485 [DELETED] 

i can just imagine the trolling that will ensue once actual drivers come across these

>> No.5093493

Guys, what if
Guys
What if retards learned how to drive?

I better be able to drive my own car until the day I die otherwise you can expect me to shit on the sensors of your self-driven prius. I didn't waste years of my life on professional driving to be forced to sit in a god damn personal taxi.

>> No.5093503

This sounds great for the endless arrow straight highways and suburbs in the US. But over here in Europe it's more or less unthinkable. I'm absolutely terrified of trusting my life to a computer on our narrow, twisting, bending roads.

>> No.5093501

>>5093493

This is probably a troll, but there will be lots of morons like this IRL and any system will have to be able to deal with them.

>> No.5093506

>>5093501
This man has a different opinion than me he must be trolling.

>> No.5093515

>>5093503
>I'm absolutely terrified of trusting my life to a computer on our narrow, twisting, bending roads.

Even if you had statistics showing that computer is 99% less likely to get in an accident on those roads?

>> No.5093518

>>5093506

Well I did say probably.

>> No.5093521

1. Driverless cars are legalized in most US states
2. Driverless cars start hitting and killing pedestrians (doesn't matter if the car was at fault, and it's going to happen eventually)
3. Massive shitstorm ensues and knee-jerk legislation pulls all of them off the road

The argument here is that even if a human wouldn't have been able to avoid the accident the robot car was involved in, even if robot cars are statistically better drivers, the lack of a human operator represents an abdication of responsibility that no one will be able to accept.

>> No.5093525

>>5093515
Yes. I would still want to drive my own car, though I would prefer if everyone else uses the statistically safer method.

>> No.5093533

>>5093515
Evolution has formed humans for millions of years to make them live in their environment to the best of their efforts, our senses are incredibly fine and we all value and cherish our own lives. A computer is man-made and put into the environment with no previous experience and technology that is inferior to the human body, spare maybe the reaction time. All it does is run algorithms and calculations, and it doesn't have a sense of any value in the first place. It only tries to avoid crashes because it's told to.

>> No.5093534

>>5093525

Can I ask why?

>> No.5093544

>>5093533

Ok. So what's your point?

>> No.5093546

>>5093533

But if it's 99% less likely to crash, then by what criterion is it "inferior?" And what does motivation matter? My dog is much more motivated than me to open cans of dog food, but that doesn't make him better at it.

>> No.5093549

>>5093534
Because that way you eliminate the problem that other people are idiots, while at the same time not placing your life in the hands of some silicon-made-carriage-god who all you can do is idly pray to that it not destroy you.

>> No.5093551

>>5093544
My point is that I'd rather crash and die with a chance of X on my own record, than crash and die with a chance of X/10 because of a computer error.

It is my life, and it should be my responsibility not to lose it.

>> No.5093555

>>5093533
Why does the motivation make any difference with regards to driving effectiveness? Garry Kasparov *really wanted* to win his second match against Deep Blue but the computer kicked his ass anyway. The robot car is going to be a better driver, based on the assumption that it can react to any road condition or obstruction. Humans evolved to do a lot of things and driving isn't one of them. A robot would have a hard time surviving in the wilderness for a month, but cars operate based on rules of the road and that's the perfect domain for a computer.

>> No.5093558

>>5093555
Except that it means navigating in a real world environment of infinite detail and unpredictability. So far all the robot cars I've seen have been driving in a perfectly flat parking lot with barely any obstacles on a sunny day.

>> No.5093563

>>5093555
cars only operate on the rules of the road when they're driven by computers.

>> No.5093576

>>5093558
Actually they've driven in on highways and city streets in all traffic conditions and weather, with human passengers. The track record so far is perfect. Not saying it will be that way forever, though.

So far as infinite unpredictability is concerned, give me an example of some road obstacle or event that could escape the lidar and radar sensors and crash the car. There are truly only a few kinds of hazards you can encounter on the road. Either an obstacle is already blocking the path ahead of the car, or an object moves into the path of the car. Its reflexes are effectively perfect, so anything that gets in its way fast enough to cause an accident would certainly have foiled a human driver as well.

>> No.5093584

One plus is that it could help reduce queues and such.

>> No.5093585

>>5093576
There will be the day when a robot car crashes and kills someone. Whose responsibility will it be?

>> No.5093587

>>5093551
>It is my life, and it should be my responsibility not to lose it.

What nonsense. You put your life in the hands of machines and of other people every day. Hell, even driving the car "yourself" puts your trust in all sorts of mechanical systems that you did not build and likely aren't even aware of.

>> No.5093592

>>5093587
And adding more machines that can randomly fail or error is better?

>> No.5093594

>>5093585
It will be the responsibility of the car's designers if the car was at fault, issues will arise even if the car wasn't to blame, hence my post >>5093521

>> No.5093598

>>5093592
But you are the least reliable machine in your car. It's removing YOU and replacing you with something more reliable.

>> No.5093603

>>5093576
I'd kind of want the system to be able to react to human malice appropriately though. Even if no one has ever tried to run me off the road personally, I'd just feel better knowing that my auto-drive system isn't going to behave in some sort of predictably manipulatable manner outside my control. Somebody finds a way to trick cars into just nicely pulling over and stopping themselves on a stretch of backwoods highway and then murders you or something.

That's what concerns me, perhaps irrationally, more than how they deal with obstacles, its how they deal with people.

>> No.5093601

add this technology. with vending machine technology.

And you get trucks that deliver shit right to your house.

>> No.5093607

>>5093585

Probably the person it killed. Assuming not, I suppose whoever is deemed at fault when an accident is caused by mechanical failure today. I don't really know the law.

>> No.5093609

>>5093576
As a driver, I anticipate stupid behavior on the part of other drivers sometimes.

Driver A is weaving or changing lanes erratically, or otherwise driving aggressively.

Driver B has a map or newspaper in his lap on the highway.

Driver C is putting on lipstick.

Driver D is clearly angry and shouting at his kids in the back of the car.

Driver E is an American at a four-way stop.

Driver F is on a cellphone.

Driver G is transporting materials on a truck bed and has done a poor job of securing the contents.

These situations and many others effectively allow me more reaction time than a computer.

I'm not against google's cars. But I disagree that driving is limited to a straightforward physical understanding of the road. I can judge many types of [reasonably common] dangerous situation better than a computer can.

>> No.5093608

>>5093598
>But you are the least reliable machine in your car.
[citation needed]

The last time I checked I had zero accidents on my record but my car has been to the shop multiple times a year.

>> No.5093615

>>5093603
I think there will probably be a manual override so you can avoid situations like this. In fact I predict robot cars will never take off with the general public unless they have an override that can be activated immediately, since people tend to trust themselves the most anyway.

>> No.5093616

>>5093592
>And adding more machines that can randomly fail or error is better?

Yes, because it's removing human error, which is responsible for almost 100% of crashes.

>> No.5093619

>>5093607
you know wasn't there a case not that long ago where someone was convicted of like three counts of manslaughter because of a faulty toyota that caused it to accelerate.

>> No.5093621

>>5093609
>These situations and many others effectively allow me more reaction time than a computer.

They don't, though.

>> No.5093620

>>5093608
That's a silly comparison.
How many times have you stubbed your toe, gotten sick, or anything like that?
That would be a more reasonable comparison.
Ever had a headache? Eye strain? Neck pain?

Though I agree for now that I'd much rather trust another person to be driving the car, especially if it was myself.

>> No.5093624

>>5093607
>I don't really know the law.
And this is a strong argument towards having cars be machine operated.

>> No.5093627

>>5093608
>[citation needed]

http://www.aa1car.com/library/auto_accident.htm

>Mechanical failures are a factor in 12% to 13% of all auto accidents, according to all of the statistics I could find on the subject. In most cases, the mechanical failures can be attributed to normal wear or a lack of proper vehicle maintenance, not poor design or manufacturing defects (though there have been plenty of examples of the latter over the years).

So human error is solely responsible for ~90% of car accidents.

>> No.5093630

>>5093621
>They don't, though.

Driver G is transporting materials on a truck bed and has done a poor job of securing the contents.

I simply leave the vicinity of the dangerous situation when I recognize gardening equipment could spill in front of me at any time. The google car presumably wouldn't acknowledge the potential spill, and would not react until something actually fell off the truck.

I appreciate the situation far earlier, and have far more time to respond.

>> No.5093633

>>5093627
That's the average. What about me as an individual with zero accidents on the record?

>> No.5093637

>>5093633
If you have zero accidents on your record than 0/0 * 100 % are caused by mechanical failure.

>> No.5093640

>>5093615
Interestingly, the trend may go the other way.

Some vehicles already override the human in certain situations. I think there is a braking system, for example, which assumes that most drivers hesitate to commit to braking hard. When it recognizes a certain braking scenario, it slams on the brakes hard without your direction.

>> No.5093643

>>5093640
Those can be turned off with the press of a button though.

>> No.5093645

new road signs "manual operation of car prohibited 6am-10am M-F"

>> No.5093651

>>5093645
I would actually be fine with that.
Do most of my cruising at night anyway.
Nothing like an empty road and a clear, starry night sky.

>> No.5093654

>>5093633
>To date I have died zero times, so statistically all activities are equally likely kill me.

This is your argument.

>> No.5093663

>>5093654
That's why I don't leave the house for no good reason. Statistically speaking I could die anywhere anytime.

>> No.5093668

>>5093630

Could we program google cars to assign danger values like this to cars? i.e. Could we make it so you can point out a specific car to your car, then tell it to keep its distance from it?

I wonder what's worse during such an accident - a human's paniced response or a robot's possible lack of one.

>> No.5093667

>>5093663
Even in your home. So what's the point in living in fear?
You should read about SADS.

>> No.5093671

>>5093667
Make that SUNDS. That is way worse.

>> No.5093672

>>5093671
Make that SLUTS. That is way more fun.

>> No.5093676

>>5093672
Nah, man.. Sluts aren't fun unless you're 16 or a manchild.

>> No.5093677

>>5093671
>>5093672
>>5093676
>Osiris

>> No.5093679

>>5093668
Not all drivers react with panic.
The worst reaction during a panic in that scenario is freezing and doing nothing.
So in that sense the car doing nothing is way worse.

>> No.5093682

>>5093676
>>5093672
>>5093671
>>5093667

What the fuck.

>> No.5093683

>>5093677
Yeah, some people like to throw on the name because "lel i am a fag" etc.

>> No.5093684

Hackers anyone?

Hacking our cars as we drive...
Crashing them...
Better get some aluminium foil...


Just saying

>> No.5093686

>>5093679

1) Why would the car do nothing?
2) How is swerving into incoming traffic not worse than doing nothing?

>> No.5093687

>>5093686
1) I was responding to him saying the car potentially not reacting.
2) Okay, maybe not the worst. But what kind of idiot swerves into oncoming traffic?

>> No.5093688

>>5093684
Why the fuck would you network that shit? Second I'm more concerned about the idiot open-source hobbyists install in linux and their own custom driving algorithms.

>> No.5093689

>>5093684
ATMOS...

>> No.5093690

>>5093687
people swerve away from something like a deer, they go into the larger open space of the oncoming lane instead of towards the ditch at the end of the road.

>> No.5093710

>>5093690
You shut your fucking whore mouth.

>> No.5093724

I welcome our new google overlords

>> No.5095790

>>5093627
So, car manufacturer already spin it in a way that discharge them from responsibilities, putting it on the victim.

The future's bright.

>> No.5095815

Human beings are thousands of times more likely to lose consciousness than a dedicated computer to make a mistake or crash

>> No.5095833

Holy shit google are the future.

Augmented reality glasses and now driverless cars.

>> No.5095848

You might as well replace personal cars with public transport at the point of computer drivers dominating the road.

>> No.5095889

>>5095833
killing humans, one invention at a time

>> No.5095893

>2024
>my car is driving me across the turnpike to my destination
>something goes wrong with the hardware
>everything stops
>car behind me tries to do a quick pass
>screws up the car in that line
>massive fuckup
>I just caused a shit load of crashes
>I don't even get blamed for it since it's the computers fault


my body is ready

>> No.5096007

This is the end of traffic. The end of stop lights. Cars seamlessly joining in high traffic stress streets without delay and without applying breaks anywhere. No more will cars accelerate then decelerate multiple times pointlessly because the car will know exactly where its going, what speed it will have to travel relative to the surroundings, where it is and how fast its traveling relative to other vehicles, and what is on the road on the other side of the world and throughout the world. Fuel efficiency will sky rocket, traffic will not exist, auto collision stores will go out of business, car insurance will shit on itself for lack of collisions. No more sitting in traffic for hours. The next step is to add a third dimension to the traffic and its FREE SAILING MAH NIGGAS.

>> No.5096028

>>5093503
maybe don't think so egocentric. you will hit the girl that jumps in front of your car, the computer on the other hand will react properly and instantly and save maybe a life.
attend a skid control course if you don't believe me.

>> No.5096036

>>5096007
>the end of stop lights

have fun trying to do that in high density cities like New York.

>> No.5096056

But...care manufacturing is one of the few industries that is 100% or very nearly 100% automated. Even the maintenance of the factory robots will soon be done by generalized repair robots used by multiple industries.

If raw ore can be turned into a self-driving car with no human involved, why couldn't we arrive at a point where they are a public resource? Like ordering a taxi online except it's electric (so that the 'fuel' can come from sunlight) and it shows up with no driver? And simply takes you wherever you indicate, with battery swaps as needed along the way?

Can you imagine what a collossal fucking pain in the ass even basic day to day life, today, will seem like to our obscenely spoiled grandkids?

>> No.5096079

>>5093380
>next invention:
> carless drivers

>> No.5096115

>>5096036
Yeah I imagine large cities will still be like that, but as cities form they will implement this technology into the infrastructure of the city.
The stop lights wont phase out. Its the form that they will be used. Stop lights will be taken down but the idea will still be there. The car's on-board computer will link up to a system that runs the traffic in the area as well as the vehicles around it, or will most likely be constantly online even when its not in use, and will wait for a 'go' command to start moving. And the stop lights will also still see use when the car is moving. More traffic means less speed, different accelerations, alternate routes, etc. Stop lights are only around because people dont have the things the car's of the future will to pilot themselves.

>> No.5096135

If this can be develop to the point where it is shown to be safer than human drivers, it is a good thing, full stop. Look up how many people are killed by human-error driving accidents every year.

>> No.5096198

>>5096036
roundabouts

>> No.5096308

>>5093521

The shitstorm will happen at the insurance level. Insurers will be hit with excessive claims of liability ("you should have known a driverless car was totally unsafe!"), and they'll drop all insuring these things. Poof! No more driverless cars on the road.

>> No.5096315

>>5096308

Uh, no. Safer cars means less claims paid.

>> No.5097370

>>5096115
You do not network your car, bro. That's how the russian mob's hackers will kill you.

>> No.5097383

I didn't realize there were so many luddites on /sci/

>> No.5098925

>>5093609
>These situations and many others effectively allow me more reaction time than a computer.

A computer will still react faster than you. You may be ANTICIPATING a certain event, but when said event occurs, the computer will be better at reacting.

I personally am very excited for driverless cars. They will revolutionize commuting.

>> No.5098993

>>5098925
They will revolutionize nothing. They're just a very resource and energy wasteful alternative to plain old public transport. What keeps you from taking the tram or subway to work if you're only gonna sit around anyway?

>> No.5098994

Once there are more of these on the road, they could be designed to communicate with both one another and the traffic systems. Imagine it. Wolf packs of cars gliding through intersections without ever hitting the brake or fear of being hit.

>> No.5099180

>>5093551
And if you were the only person on the road you'd have the right to be irrational in that way.

>> No.5099207

>>5098993
My city doesn't offer public transit. I live in rural Georgia.

Consider the large portion of the US that doesn't have viable public transit, and how self-driving cars would massively improve their driving efficiency. The idea that it's a waste of resources is insane.

>> No.5099225

>>5098993
Public transport is always better, yes.
But you could argue that taxis are public transport.
They just would not have drivers anymore.

>> No.5099229

>>5093609
This fucking guy. Looking at peoples laps while hes driving, knows someone is shouting at children in the back?

Are you even fucking watching the road?

>> No.5099232

>>5098993
Why not have driverless buses?

Fucking idiot.

>> No.5099239

>>5098925
The original point stands. There are dangerous situations that a human can recognize before a computer can. In those situations, the human has more time to take a course of action related to reducing or eliminating the danger.

You clearly understood what I meant.

>> No.5099244

>>5099239
All dangerous situations are related to humans being on the roads.
More an argument to ban them than anything else.

>> No.5099245

>>5099229
Do you have anything not intentionally stupid to add?

>> No.5099247

>>5099245
Yup, here you go:


This fucking guy. Looking at peoples laps while hes driving, knows someone is shouting at children in the back?

Are you even fucking watching the road?

>> No.5099317

>>5093688
I only drive cars that respect my freedoms

>> No.5099322

>2012
>I'm driving my car across the turnpike to my destination
>something goes wrong with my brakes
>everything stops
>swerve into toll booth
>car behind me tries to do a quick pass
>screws up the car in that line
>massive fuckup
>I just caused a shit load of crashes
>I don't even get blamed for it since it's the brake's fault

>> No.5099328

>>5096135
It already is, or at least it is according to what I've seen in this thread and references

>> No.5099336

I can't wait for this technology to mature and become standard. Car accidents will become a thing of the past, as will traffic jams and possibly even stop lights.

Seriously, once we have automated cars your likelihood of dying a premature death will practically halve.

>> No.5099344

>>5098993
You can't compare this to public transport. For one thing, public transport is almost completely absent outside of urban areas. In the US, however, public transport sucks to the point of barely being viable in most cities.

Public transport is also inherently indirect and slow because it has to make regular stops that have nothing to do with your destination. Riding in your own vehicle is the quickest possible method barring heavy traffic.

The reality is that this technology will be more or less as profound as cure for cancer.

>> No.5099405
File: 178 KB, 571x570, 1279995138447.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5099405

>>5099244

>All dangerous situations are related to humans being on the roads.

If a tree falls on a road, a human is most certainly to blame.
Part of the roadway is washed out due to flooding. Obviously its a human's fault.
Deer walking along the side of the road decides to frolick around like an idiot in the middle of it while you close in. Of course a human is responsible.
Downed power lines? Some guy MUST have caused that to happen.

Naturally, if you removed the human element, all of the dangers encountered on the road would vanish.

>> No.5099414

>>5099405
>Naturally, if you removed the human element, all of the dangers encountered on the road would vanish.

Yep. Everything you mentioned is only dangerous due to poor human judgement and/or reaction times.

>If a tree falls on a road, a human is most certainly to blame.
A computer with reaction time in the millisecond range and scanning instruments that can "see" in all directions would be able to avoid it, even in pitch black darkness.
>Part of the roadway is washed out due to flooding
Again, computer with the right instrumentation would be able to correctly gauge the depth of the water and not attempt to drive through it.
>Deer walking along the side of the road decides to frolick around like an idiot in the middle of it while you close in
Again, you hit the deer because you don't see it until it's too late for your slow nervous system to react. A computer would be able to see long before you would, and could react instantaneously to whatever retarded shit the deer does.
>Downed power lines
Since when is this a problem for a car? It's only if you got out of the car that you'd be in trouble.

>> No.5099416

Will I be ever to have sex with my car? Come on guys, this is important.

>> No.5099425

>>5099414

Oh, I'm not arguing that a computer can't avoid them, I am arguing that dangers exist independently of human judgment. The post I referred to argued the opposite. That is incorrect.

>> No.5099470

>>5099414
These were funny; I hope they were intended as jokes.

A fallen tree is not an obstacle to drive around in most cases. Trees are usually much longer than the road is wide.
So, the problem is compounded by your 'avoidance' computer -- which tries to avoid at speed. It also has all the other computers, in two directions, making avoidance maneuvers, and even if they manage to brake in time, no solution for going forward, which means a massive sudden alteration in both his routing and of all other cars using that road.

Washed out roadway?
How exactly do you figure the car knows the depth of the water?
No one else does -- and in fact, the way to find out is to check directly. Does the car mince forward and extend his antenna delicately in, gauge flow and depth, and then decide?

Deer?
You apparently have no idea how animals react to something unexpected -- or you have no idea what it takes for a large heavy object moving at speed to 'evade' another object.
It's hard enough if it doesn't move at all -- which is often what the animal does until the car is very close.
It's damn near impossible for a car to evaluate the movement of an animal; it is totally ridiculous to figure that the car can do much more than move a meter or two to one side in avoidance. Cars have almost NOTHING they can do to avoid in this way, yet your note sounds like they can incur acrobatics of astonishing grace, leaping high above, delicately landing on two tires, then flipping over to avoid the poop left on the road, too.

>> No.5099499

>So, the problem is compounded by your 'avoidance' computer -- which tries to avoid at speed. It also has all the other computers, in two directions, making avoidance maneuvers, and even if they manage to brake in time, no solution for going forward, which means a massive sudden alteration in both his routing and of all other cars using that road.
Why are you pretending to know how the car would react to the tree? You think that instead of the laser rangefinder seeing that the tree blocks the entire road and stopping, it would freak out and start swerving because it has more than one input? Google's programmers must be fucking retards.

>How exactly do you figure the car knows the depth of the water?
It would probably do it exactly the same way humans do it. By looking at the water. Not to mention the car uses a laser to map the road ahead, which goes through water. So unless the car encounters a perfectly opaque puddle that turns out to be inexplicably 3+ feet deep, it will be fine.

>> No.5099503

Just a marketing gimmick. I seriously doubt they're legalizing for practical purposes. It would make more sense if they also relax the regulation on electric cars in the state.

>> No.5099514

>>5096036
Maybe you don't understand the flow issues, but automated systems would be a vast improvement.

the only issues come up with passengers who change their minds, try to stop en route, or emergencies in-cab.

>> No.5099516

>>5096315
automated cars are NEVER the same as safer cars
safer is NEVER the same as low insurance payouts

>> No.5099522

>>5095833
Let's keep this straight:
Google is NOT close to making augmented reality glasses

That was a PR campaign -- the only thing they had produced was an extremely optimistic look for the glasses, almost no tech whatever.

They hadn't even decided what they were going to build, but they produced an image -- a HORRIBLE lie.

>> No.5099525
File: 145 KB, 359x330, 1323819570121.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5099525

Finally, now we can get all those women off the wheel, amirite guys?

>> No.5099530

>>5093686
>2) How is swerving into incoming traffic not worse than doing nothing?

Very simple:
oncoming traffic does NOT mean a collision; it simply doesn't mean there is a car there to hit, just that the lane is meant for traffic the other direction.
Also, the oncoming traffic would, in that scenario, have computers to manage the obstacles, as well.

>>5093687
>But what kind of idiot swerves into oncoming traffic?
They are called 'drivers;' it happens very very often. Hell, it sometimes happens when there is no obstacle at all, even when the driver is paying attention.

>> No.5099533

>>5099239
Furthermore, I would like to contest your assertion that a human would be better at recognizing potential dangers than a computer. Humans can be distracted, and have biases towards certain things.

>> No.5099534

>>5093687
>But what kind of idiot swerves into oncoming traffic?

It happens. Maybe something to do with the flaws in the human brain, something we don't understand yet.

>> No.5099535

>>5098993
> They're just a very resource and energy wasteful alternative to plain old public transport. What keeps you from taking the tram or subway to work if you're only gonna sit around anyway?

Not all of the world is urban area. Many people have commutes that can only be undertaken by private motor vehicles; many of these commutes are >20 minutes. That is a lot of time wasted.
Furthermore, this means that a family that might need two cars now only needs one. I could take the car to work and then have it drive back home for my spouse or children to use, and then have it drive back when I am done with work.
There are so many applications of driverless vehicles that it's almost a no-brainer to see how they will revolutionize commuting.

>> No.5099536

>>5093688
You MUST network in order to manage routes, traffic, and communicate with others doing the same (planning a route is nonsense if very many other cars plan the same route).

But you're both right -- hackers are a MAJOR threat to such an open network, their activities resulting in major property damage and very likely loss of life on every occurrence.
Similarly, the hobbyist asshat who think he needs to be able to run his own routing algorithm.
Can you imagine any reason that a hobbyist would NOT make his car go faster, or have priorities, in such a world?

>> No.5099538
File: 51 KB, 403x447, rms.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5099538

>hackers

>> No.5099541

>>5099344
>Riding in your own vehicle is the quickest possible method barring heavy traffic.

MANY problems with this:
first, heavy traffic in these scenarios is a given. All of these systems will exist because of high density populations; no one needs to build such a thing for a Montana highway.

Second, the expense of your own vehicle is a major drawback, with very few benefits. They are mostly psychological pacifiers.

Third, you make a big deal here about 'quickest' -- a factor that may not even be near the top of issues.
Again, an individual's lack of patience or sense of urgency is not a need of the system or the purpose -- it's a psychological hangup, and one almost everyone expert believes causes vastly more problems than benefits.

>> No.5099547

>>5099541
>the expense of your own vehicle is a major drawback, with very few benefits. They are mostly psychological pacifiers.

The majority of the US requires motor vehicles to get anywhere. Transportation such as trains, buses, planes, etc., will only take you intra- / inter-city.

>> No.5099550

>>5093609
I don't understand your point. You basically say:
>In some situations, I know a problem is more likely to occur, therefore I am waiting for something to happen, ready to react as soon as it happens. I will be surprised for a shorter amount of time than if I hadn't been prepared.
What a computer does it:
>I am programmed to respond (roughly instantly) to various problems. As soon as it happens, I react. Knowing a problem is more likely to happen will not change my reaction speed because I am a computer, I react instantly anyway.
It looks like the computer is better than you ever when you are aware of the fact that a driver has higher-than-average danger potential.

The only thing you can do better than a computer would be to acknowledge the risk and put a larger distance between you and the vehicle in front of you, but honestly:
- If that's required, it means that when you don't see a "high risk" sign, you're close enough to the vehicle in front of you so that if something happens, you don't have time to react,
- On the other hand, by having faster reaction times, computers can handle smaller security distances than humans while being able to react, so their "normal" security distance is already safe for both the "normal" and the "higher risk" scenarios.

They're better than us. Maybe the one thing they can't predict well and that some of us react well to (by slowing down) is a child crossing the street without looking (going after a ball, or just after getting out of the bus), but then again most people don't even slow down when there are children getting out of the bus.

>> No.5099552

>>5099547
And they're full of unpleasant people.

>> No.5099564

Drivers cause all the accidents. Not only should self-driving cars be legal, driving yourself should be illegal.

>> No.5099578

If it 99% less likely to crash or get in an accident the it will probably take me 3x more time to get to a destination than driving myself.

>going speed limit
>not stealing and switching lanes like a pro
>stopping on yellow

I can only see it being useful for drunk people

>> No.5099582

>>5099578
>3x more time
...how much over the speed limit do you drive?

>> No.5099595

>>5099550
Thanks, you make some solid points.

>> No.5099602

>>5099578
>drunk people

This anon makes a compelling point.

He's also a dick.

>> No.5099636
File: 2.74 MB, 333x250, 1332753262887.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5099636

>>5099578
you're a dumb faggot.
not only are you a danger to everyone else on the road, you're pissing away gas and not getting anywhere faster.

>> No.5099638

>>5099207
But 'self-driving cars' is vague:
there are several different things people are talking about here:
A, fully-automated transit filling a city (and with borders) that manages all traffic and driving
B, a car that, on it's own, can be given a destination and roll out onto an unknown road and drive to the destination.

Neither are anywhere near close to being developed.
Neither are necessary future developments in any way.

Efficient transport is necessary for cities, but individual vehicles and a management system for them is the least efficient way to do it.

Automated driving in all other areas may be a bit safer, but it would be incredibly, vastly, horribly inefficient.
It also solves almost no other problems, and introduces several new ones.

>> No.5099643

>>5099578
I can see it being useful in keeping people like you, who should have no business even owning a car, from steering one.

>> No.5099689

>>5099578
>If it 99% less likely to crash or get in an accident the it will probably take me 3x more time to get to a destination than driving myself.

This doesn't make any sense, and it still puts a huge emphasis on nothing but TIME.
That's gotta be the least important factor in the list.
Nevertheless, a computer connected to a traffic system can only take the fastest route -- your notion that you could do better is either nonsense or reflects your willingness to risk the safety of others.

>>going speed limit
>>not stealing and switching lanes like a pro
>>stopping on yellow
>I can only see it being useful for drunk people

changing lanes is a reflection of poor ability, not high ability.
Yellow lights mean you need to stop if you can; they do not mean you can go through.

>> No.5099698

>>5099689
see, that's why you want a computer controlled car. You're a pussy. Which is a life choice I fully respect. The world needs betas too, someone has to work in engineering.

>> No.5099704

>>5099698
>RRRAAAGGHH IT'S NOT LIFE IF I'M NOT ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF OTHERS
Oh do tell. Compensating for something?

>> No.5099706

Why do people get so worked up about driving? Humanity has invented tools that do math for us, for christ's sake. Driving is nothing

>> No.5099707

>>5099706
Because driving is dangerous. Math doesn't end in fiery explosions, only applied math does that.

>> No.5099708

>>5099706
For some people cars represent freedom, which is a loaded word especially in america.

For some, it also represents a sort of coming-of-age ritual, with people getting or being given their first cars at a certain age.

Then there's also the cultural baggage of being a status-symbol.

In many ways, the modern world would have been better off without the spread of private automobiles.

>> No.5099713

This is going to be great.

Driving through Manhattan or L.A. would be restricted to only computer assisted driving. Entirely new mathematical models (opening new career paths) would completely obliterate gridlock.

Once society accepts no human manual control of a vehicle (which they won't), then more money and effort can go into vehicle energy systems, safety designs (humans can now lay down, more aerodynamic), and vehicle care / breakdown support - paid for by the nation's taxes.

Hell... large metropolitan areas might even start structuring complex layering to their roads that would be puzzling to a human, but would allow the computers to get their passenger to farther places at quicker times.

>> No.5100262

Barring the fact that it will probably be superior in every way to humans driver.
Using them would probably be rich-exclusive; at first.
Maybe there would be google garages, for alterning existing cars ?
Probably not.