# This is why driverless cars won't be a thing



## Mr. T (Jun 27, 2015)

http://www.12news.com/story/tech/20...car-raises-alarm-over-driver-safety/30462317/


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Mr. T said:


> http://www.12news.com/story/tech/20...car-raises-alarm-over-driver-safety/30462317/


S'funny I was out the other night and the lights went out in an entire neighborhood. As in ALL the lights. No flashing red lights at the intersections. Because the people closest to the intersection where I was KNEW there was supposed to be a light there they stopped and treated it as if it had gone to flashing red lights (like a 4 way stop).

I wondered if a self driving car, seeing no lights, would have known there was normally a light there and without that OR stop signs if it would have stopped. Do they know where lights are? With construction here they have to adjust. But how to adjust to nothing?

There's a way to go for sure. Even hacking aside.


----------



## aarias (Jul 19, 2015)

Driverless cars won't be a thing, at least not anytime soon. Certainly not for taxi or ride share serving purposes.


----------



## AintWorthIt (Sep 30, 2014)

It's ten years away, maybe more.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

aarias said:


> Driverless cars won't be a thing, at least not anytime soon. Certainly not for taxi or ride share serving purposes.


The benefits of driverless car will be first felt on our own cars. There will likely be a mode to enter a freeway and hit "driverless". Driverless,with us behind the wheel, we could then cruise at higher speeds, closer to each other increasing existing freeway capacity and making it safer. Well that is what my chrystal ball says anyway.


----------



## Ubermon (Aug 19, 2014)

Again, the denial is astounding.


----------



## Simon (Jan 4, 2015)

frndthDuvel said:


> The benefits of driverless car will be first felt on our own cars. There will likely be a mode to enter a freeway and hit "driverless". Driverless,with us behind the wheel, we could then cruise at higher speeds, closer to each other increasing existing freeway capacity and making it safer. Well that is what my chrystal ball says anyway.


This


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

Ahem, try getting auto manufacturers to make cars that drive themselves.

Big auto isn't that stupid. Self driving cars = less car sales, by as much as half. 2 or more people with slightly different schedules can use 1 vehicle if it drives it self during parked time.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

dirtylee said:


> Ahem, try getting auto manufacturers to make cars that drive themselves.
> 
> Big auto isn't that stupid. Self driving cars = less car sales, by as much as half. 2 or more people with slightly different schedules can use 1 vehicle if it drives it self during parked time.


https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/autonomous-driverless-vehicles-corporations-list/


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

observer said:


> https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/autonomous-driverless-vehicles-corporations-list/


I don't really see a lot of people asking for this. Big business yes, but I'm not so sure about individuals. Personally I really don't want to get into a driverless car. Don't want to get on a pilotless airplane, either.

These are pretty big leaps, the thing has your life in it's hands.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyhamed/2015/01/21/driverless-stocks/#2cbafdc534f9


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> I don't really see a lot of people asking for this. Big business yes, but I'm not so sure about individuals. Personally I really don't want to get into a driverless car. Don't want to get on a pilotless airplane, either.
> 
> These are pretty big leaps, the thing has your life in it's hands.


A lot of people probably preferred the horse over the "horseless carriage". I think horses are more dangerous.

Airplanes are already mostly flown by computers now. Pilots are just there for window dressing.

From an economic and efficiency standpoint, a driverless car would make more sense for me if it was in the 40K price range. I would love to have one.

It may be a while before they are available and safe enough to use. I would like to have one in 15 years, just as I hit retirement. If a van type was available, I would outfit the back like a minimotorhome, program it to go where I wanted then go take a nap. Cars would be smarter than horses. There was many a time I rode asleep on the back of a horse, sleeping in a car would be safer still.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

observer said:


> A lot of people probably preferred the horse over the "horseless carriage". I think horses are more dangerous.
> 
> Airplanes are already mostly flown by computers now. Pilots are just there for window dressing.
> 
> ...


A horseless carriage is driven by a Human, as was a horse and buggy. What changed is what powers it, not who drives it.

Good luck getting people to get on board a pilotless airplane, regardless of what you think of autopilot.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> I don't really see a lot of people asking for this. Big business yes, but I'm not so sure about individuals. Personally I really don't want to get into a driverless car. Don't want to get on a pilotless airplane, either.
> 
> These are pretty big leaps, the thing has your life in it's hands.


I sure as hell want a driverless car. Too many times I have to stop at a parking lot and take a nap because I'm not safe to drive. If today they sold a solid, well tested, driverless car with a proven record on performance I'd jump all over it.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

I believe the technology will go through a stage where a driver is required, but the car is making the decisions. 

Mercedes has a prototype that looks like it may be the missing link between human drivers and autonomous cars. 

If people learn to trust the technology while still feeling in control, and the technology actually works, there is a good chance autonomous cars could be accepted. 

If they screw it up like the first Google autonomous cars.... all bets are off.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> A horseless carriage is driven by a Human, as was a horse and buggy. What changed is what powers it, not who drives it.
> 
> Good luck getting people to get on board a pilotless airplane, regardless of what you think of autopilot.


At the time though, humans were more afraid of the horseless carriage than the horse. Why? Because they were afraid of the new technology. Same thing with driverless cars.

As time goes on and the tech is proven, acceptance will be easy and fast. For thousands of years we walked or rode animals. Change to mechanized transport was not easy. 
We are not like our recent ancestors, we have learned to quickly adapt to new tech.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

observer said:


> At the time though, humans were more afraid of the horseless carriage than the horse. Why? Because they were afraid of the new technology. Same thing with driverless cars.
> 
> As time goes on and the tech is proven, acceptance will be easy and fast. For thousands of years we walked or rode animals. Change to mechanized transport was not easy.
> We are not like our recent ancestors, we have learned to quickly adapt to new tech.


There isn't much fear of 'technology' in 2016, compared to the 19th Century.

It's a matter of what's a bridge too far.

The other major issue is what happens to the economy if you eliminate all of the driving jobs. I've read some interesting articles which make the case that it could be a national security issue.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

observer said:


> At the time though, humans were more afraid of the horseless carriage than the horse. Why? Because they were afraid of the new technology. Same thing with driverless cars.
> 
> As time goes on and the tech is proven, acceptance will be easy and fast. For thousands of years we walked or rode animals. Change to mechanized transport was not easy.
> We are not like our recent ancestors, we have learned to quickly adapt to new tech.


And we are always surprised when the new technology turns out to be amazingly complex and hard to understand without training.

Like how the Airbus crashed at the Paris Air Show. The plane was in landing mode, the pilot had no idea. The plane landed in a forest.

Yep, there will be a learning curve and a lot of surprises.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> There isn't much fear of 'technology' in 2016, compared to the 19th Century.
> 
> It's a matter of what's a bridge too far.
> 
> The other major issue is what happens to the economy if you eliminate all of the driving jobs. I've read some interesting articles which make the case that it could be a national security issue.


Same thing that happens every time technology eliminates a bunch of jobs. People do other things. Eventually we'll run out of new things for people to do but who knows when that will be. Every time there is a tech breakthrough people predict a cataclysm. Its called the Luddite fallacy.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150805-will-machines-eventually-take-on-every-job


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> There isn't much fear of 'technology' in 2016, compared to the 19th Century.
> 
> It's a matter of what's a bridge too far.
> 
> The other major issue is what happens to the economy if you eliminate all of the driving jobs. I've read some interesting articles which make the case that it could be a national security issue.


We are well on our way there now, lot's of jobs have been eliminated due to automation, jobs sent overseas and consolidation of industries.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Same thing that happens every time technology eliminates a bunch of jobs. People do other things. Eventually we'll run out of new things for people to do but who knows when that will be. Every time there is a tech breakthrough people predict a cataclysm. Its called the Luddite fallacy.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150805-will-machines-eventually-take-on-every-job


I think it's way more than a fallacy.


----------



## zandor (Mar 6, 2015)

I hope they do become "a thing" but not any time soon. I'd like them to become a workable option when one of these events happens:
1. I get married, have kids, and one of them is about 15 or so.
2. I'm almost too old to drive.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

observer said:


> We are well on our way there now, lot's of jobs have been eliminated due to automation, jobs sent overseas and consolidation of industries.


Mine went to Tijuana.

Really. The company that bought the company I worked for bought the largest Maquiladora in TJ. They moved thousands of jobs from San Diego to Mexico.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

RockinEZ said:


> Mine went to Tijuana.
> 
> Really. The company that bought the company I worked for bought the largest Maquiladora in TJ. They moved thousands of jobs from San Diego to Mexico.


Mine was downsized by a 401K financed company consolidating what used to be a very fragmented industry.

An industry where many, many, MANY people made good (OK, great) money. Now just the few at the top make money.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

observer said:


> Mine was downsized by a 401K financed company consolidating what used to be a very fragmented industry.
> 
> An industry where many, many, MANY people made good (OK, great) money. Now just the few at the top make money.


There it is. 
The business of America is shuffling money. 
What a shame.


----------



## Ubermon (Aug 19, 2014)

"You hear that Mr. Anderson?... That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. Anderson."


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The best thing about driver-less cars is that we will always be in them getting paid.


----------



## JimS (Aug 18, 2015)

Drone pilots. Drone operator sits in a bunker with a pack of blue meth. Takes a plane off, switches to autopilot, selects new aircraft. Time to land, plane holds until operator gets a ping, then lands it. Operator looks at destination, decides it's too close and ignores the ping and passes it off to another droner.


----------

