# NTSB: Fully Autonomous Cars Are Unlikely



## UberNorthDfw

So Much for Uber's self driving dreams:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...-americas-top-transportation-safety-official/


----------



## cho

Looks like he's telling interested parties to make his Christmas really special this year.


----------



## tohunt4me

cho said:


> Looks like he's telling interested parties to make his Christmas really special this year.


Lmao.

Was about to say,they'll just buy a new one.

Govt. 2.0


----------



## uberdriverfornow

A bunch of people in the tech field are going to cry their poor eyes out now.

What this guy is sayin is pure common sense but most people in the tech field want to live their utopian dream and it means believing self driving cars will ever happen.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Everyone thinks sci fi as how many movies 20-30 years ago anticipated flying cars,full vr lives,clothes that never get dirty just somethings. From what ive seen in 20-30 years not much has changed. Onpy thing that has changed is got lazzier. Infostructure looks shittier then ever in alot of places. More people liveing on poverity line. Violence has gone up. Only big thing that has changed is how we see things on tv and in our hands. Self driveing vehicals will not over rule. This scenerio of makeing "peaople illegal to drive" wont happen as in cities they should make it illegal for you to ride your bike as i think thats even more dangrous.
Ive put my 2 cents into this so much as more and more humans cramed into this planet with baseic needs getting harder to get more crimes and violance will happen as we getting close to tipping point i think tipping point could happen as soon as who ever becomes President.


----------



## rtaatl

Jermin8r89 said:


> Everyone thinks sci fi as how many movies 20-30 years ago anticipated flying cars,full vr lives,clothes that never get dirty just somethings. From what ive seen in 20-30 years not much has changed. Onpy thing that has changed is got lazzier. Infostructure looks shittier then ever in alot of places. More people liveing on poverity line. Violence has gone up. Only big thing that has changed is how we see things on tv and in our hands. Self driveing vehicals will not over rule. This scenerio of makeing "peaople illegal to drive" wont happen as in cities they should make it illegal for you to ride your bike as i think thats even more dangrous.
> Ive put my 2 cents into this so much as more and more humans cramed into this planet with baseic needs getting harder to get more crimes and violance will happen as we getting close to tipping point i think tipping point could happen as soon as who ever becomes President.


I remember growing up watching movies and how "the future" was depicted as either this clean and technologically advanced society or some war torn city in shambles where everyone was scraping to survive. That's the difference between a society that puts the greater good ahead of greed versus the one that tries to keep the have and the have nots separated.


----------



## Driving and Driven

About seventy years ago, Americans freaked out because of Sputnik. Kennedy called for us to put a man on the moon. A lot of people thought he was crazy. Some people got to work on it. Twelve years later, there were men on the moon. There were people at that time which thought there would NEVER be someone standing and walking on the moon. It happened just over a decade later.


----------



## RamzFanz

He's just a typical bureaucrat commenting on something he doesn't understand. You can tell by him not understanding machine learning and then presenting the _trolley problem_, which is nonsense.

Here, I have a trolley problem for him:

You're driving along a coastal highway when you spot a man drowning in the ocean. If you stop to rescue him, your passenger, a doctor delivering a vial of cancer-fighting serum to a nearby hospital, will be delayed in treating a dying patient who has dedicated his life to helping the poor. To make matters worse, the man in the ocean is shouting, "I know a way to bring lasting peace to the Middle East, and I'm the only one with this information!" Meanwhile, your passenger is using the onboard computer to look up "best local seafood," which doesn't affect your dilemma one way or the other, but is nonetheless annoying.

The feds probably won't have a dog in this fight anyways, it's probably going to be state by state, UNLESS some of the largest companies in the world get their way and get legislation passed legalizing SDCs nationwide. The NTSB doesn't have regulatory powers.

Some areas will likely require humans where others won't. It will quickly show us how bad human drivers are when they take over.

It's sad that the head of the NTSB doesn't understand that airplane pilots are way way more dangerous than autopilot and when they override autopilot, it's more likely to be the wrong decision. I have never heard of a properly installed and operated autopilot _causing _an accident. And anyways, there is no comparison, most plane autopilot tech is ancient. You do not need perfection or even 1 in a billion, you just need to be significantly better than humans, and that's a low bar.


----------



## Elephant

Fully autonomous car is possible only when we have seprate specially designed road for them.


----------



## OlDirtySapper

Yeah and robots would never weld or drive fork trucks either. A computer faster than the ones that put us on the moon in my pocket??? IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!


----------



## RamzFanz

Elephant said:


> Fully autonomous car is possible only when we have seprate specially designed road for them.


They don't need any new infrastructure to operate. I would bet that within 5 years of launch they will have their own lanes and entire existing roads only used by them. It's much better to keep humans from mucking up the works.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Today i just got remided about public transportation how much it sucks. Me and me gf were only going 100 miles away as car is getting fixed in the shop. We took 1 bus and 2 trains and took 7 hours with spending $65 plus snacks and drink for extra $10 waiting in boston. Normaly would cost me maybe $10 of fuel and an hour and a half! Also had screaming baby and aome high dude who dropped his water and got all over my bag. Wow humans really dont want control and be miserable all the time. Oh yea my girl was in middle of painful period grabbing me crying when r we gonna be home.


----------



## RamzFanz

Jermin8r89 said:


> Today i just got remided about public transportation how much it sucks. Me and me gf were only going 100 miles away as car is getting fixed in the shop. We took 1 bus and 2 trains and took 7 hours with spending $65 plus snacks and drink for extra $10 waiting in boston. Normaly would cost me maybe $10 of fuel and an hour and a half! Also had screaming baby and aome high dude who dropped his water and got all over my bag. Wow humans really dont want control and be miserable all the time. Oh yea my girl was in middle of painful period grabbing me crying when r we gonna be home.


Brutal. With a SDC, you guys could have just slept.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Yea thatd be good. If its uberfied id prolly still have to deal with mandatory pool pax that would smeeze on my face and want to talk about his mother. The next obamacare haha


----------



## WeirdBob

RamzFanz said:


> you just need to be significantly better than humans, and that's a low bar.


No, YOU need them to meet that low bar. Here's a shocker: A lot of people are going to demand they be a LOT safer than humans.

In any case, yes, they are eventually coming. Several people will die in an accident that probably would not have happened with human drivers. And so, despite whatever the numbers are, people are going to freak the f*** out and demand federal safety standards that you believe are unnecessary.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

I knew RamFanz would get his pants in a bunch over this article. He's terrified he's wrong about the future, and he is. 

Of course the NTSB guy is right. He's had decades of experience in this regard. And it's common sense as a previous poster said. 

And to the person who mentioned the moon landing: remember that Neil Armstrong had to take manual control of the lander module during final descent to avoid a huge boulder field that the computer would have otherwise tried to land in  Just sayin'


----------



## Elephant

RamzFanz said:


> they will have their own lanes


Which lanes? Fully autonomous car and human driver on the same road is never possible.What will happen if self driving car want to change lane or want to take exit from freeway and human driver never give it a chance.What will happen if self driving car tire is flat on the freeway? Why we don't have driverless train yet?


----------



## Jermin8r89

Elephant said:


> Which lanes? Fully autonomous car and human driver on the same road is never possible.What will happen if self driving car want to change lane or want to take exit from freeway and human driver never give it a chance.What will happen if self driving car tire is flat on the freeway? Why we don't have driverless train yet?


They already have it happening with tesla. They will bring autonimous cars with human drivers make us be the crash dummies with system that was also built by humans. The NTSB is a small powerful group anything u see with roads sidewalks lights have all been authorized by them. Each state has their own set of rules. I would like to see self driveing vehicals get there own lanes instead of being the next evolutionary thing. Once we take away driveing lets take away tobacco,guns,knives,and bikes in cities. Seriously cars and bikes in boston the got the danm bike lane in middle of street between people opening up car doors to people driveing


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Been waiting for my flying car for 4 decades.
This is moonpie stuff.
Ain't no fully autonomous robot cars.


----------



## rembrandt

Wishful thinking. Who is going to pay for the thousands of miles of SDC dedicated lanes ? Companies , States or the Fed ? Existing motorways need maintenance too at the same time. It is unrealistic to expect taxpayers' money to be spent on corporate ambitions. Large area of the country is still lacking proper broadband infrastructure due to lack of funding.


----------



## zordac

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Been waiting for my flying car for 4 decades.
> This is moonpie stuff.
> Ain't no fully autonomous robot cars.


Lots of people said flying cars were a pipe dream too.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

LOL of course flying cars are possible, and have been for decades. But they're not common (or even close) and that's what this thread is about. Whether self driving cars will become common in the near future


----------



## zordac

I don't see self driving cars becoming common in our driving life time. There are just to many obstacles to overcome. Maybe 50 - 100 years from now SDC's will be common but there will still be cars driven by people also.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

zordac said:


> Lots of people said flying cars were a pipe dream too.


No one is saying the tech doesn't exist. The FAA is in no rush to license flying cars or drivers 
Same goes for the DOT.
Good luck getting autonomous robot cars licensed.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Gives me a great idea: Why isn't Uber pursuing autonomous flying cars? I'm sure that's right around the corner. And next year I'm sure we'll be taking autonomous spaceships to the moon and back for $6 each way. We're no more than 2-3 years away from hiring an autonomous ride to Mars I'm sure.

Here's a few billion dollars Uber, I'm sure you'll make it happen.


----------



## zordac

4736353377384555736 said:


> Gives me a great idea: Why isn't Uber pursuing autonomous flying cars? I'm sure that's right around the corner. And next year I'm sure we'll be taking autonomous spaceships to the moon and back for $6 each way. We're no more than 2-3 years away from hiring an autonomous ride to Mars I'm sure.


That's how much the Uber pilots would make. Of course the pilots would also have to provide the million dollar space suits so you can survive on the Moon or Mars.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Too bad they're a unicorn.

Only Pegasus can fly.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

There will be no pilots silly.

Another great thing about autonomous spaceships is it would completely solve the parking problem. Say you're sitting at home stoned out of your mind. You want a bean and cheese burrito with extra sour cream. So you use the Uber Eats app. A driverless spaceship comes down from the heavens, flies by Del Taco, picks up a burrito, drops it off at your place, and then parks itself in orbit! So easy!

Surely no more than 5 years away.


----------



## zordac

4736353377384555736 said:


> There will be no pilots silly.


Geez... What was I thinkin?



4736353377384555736 said:


> Say you're sitting at home stoned out of your mind. You want a bean and cheese burrito with extra sour cream. So you use the Uber Eats app. A driverless spaceship comes down from the heavens, flies by Del Taco, picks up a burrito, drops it off at your place, and then parks itself in orbit! So easy!


Better yet. Have the space ship go through the drive thru on the way to the Moon...


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Yes, when low earth orbit becomes too crowded we can have driverless spaceships park on the moon or on nearby asteroids


----------



## zordac

4736353377384555736 said:


> Yes, when low earth orbit becomes too crowded we can have driverless spaceships park on the moon or on nearby asteroids


Yeah but then all we will see will be complaints from the driverless spaceships on the Uberdriverlessspachip forum about all of the over saturation in the Uber spaceship ride sharing platform.


----------



## stuber

Drones and flying autonomous cars are probably an easier problem than figuring out how to mix robot cars with human drivers occupying the same roads. I'll bet we see the drones first. I know a guy who is currently building the control software. They will be testing the system soon with a scale model city in an airplane hangar.


----------



## rtaatl

zordac said:


> Lots of people said flying cars were a pipe dream too.


The flying car is possible. The average person being licensed to fly the thing is impossible. We've already covered how airplanes aren't even close to being fully autonomous so let's not start that again. With all of this imaginary utopia the big thing that holds us back every time is the human factor.


----------



## REX HAVOC

What happens if your self driving car messes up and gets a ticket for running a red light. Who pays. The company that made the software or the owner of the car? It seems that cities would not be able to charge the car owners for infractions they had no control over. The cities will suffer from huge revenue losses from not being able to charge anyone and thousands of traffic police will become non-essential.


----------



## zordac

REX HAVOC said:


> What happens if your self driving car messes up and gets a ticket for running a red light. Who pays. The company that made the software or the owner of the car?


I would think the owner of the car would get the ticket. Doesn't have to be the software's fault. One of the sensors could go bad and cause that same issue.


----------



## m1a1mg

4736353377384555736 said:


> Of course the NTSB guy is right. He's had decades of experience in this regard. And it's common sense as a previous poster said.


Actually, he's a pilot and lawyer. He's obviously a very smart guy, but he's not speaking into his area of expertise.

Also, if multi-billion $$$ companies want something to happen, it will. They'll just buy different politicians.


----------



## RamzFanz

WeirdBob said:


> No, YOU need them to meet that low bar. Here's a shocker: A lot of people are going to demand they be a LOT safer than humans.


People won't get to "demand" anything. It will mostly be between the car owners, the manufacturer, and the courts, just as it is now. I'm confused as to why people think suddenly the way the world runs has to change.



4736353377384555736 said:


> Of course the NTSB guy is right. He's had decades of experience in this regard.


He has none in this regard.



Elephant said:


> Which lanes? Fully autonomous car and human driver on the same road is never possible.What will happen if self driving car want to change lane or want to take exit from freeway and human driver never give it a chance.What will happen if self driving car tire is flat on the freeway? Why we don't have driverless train yet?


SDCs are already on the road in the Netherlands in traffic. They absolutely will be driving on the same roads as humans and have for millions of miles already.

What happens if they want to exit? They slow, speed up, or miss their exit, same as you.

A flat? What would you do?

Trains? Because there is no economic motivation. The savings would be negligible, unlike in cars.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Ain't no fully autonomous robot cars.


Yes, there are, on the road already.



rembrandt said:


> Wishful thinking. Who is going to pay for the thousands of miles of SDC dedicated lanes ? Companies , States or the Fed ? Existing motorways need maintenance too at the same time. It is unrealistic to expect taxpayers' money to be spent on corporate ambitions. Large area of the country is still lacking proper broadband infrastructure due to lack of funding.


Why would they need new lanes? We already have lanes.



zordac said:


> I don't see self driving cars becoming common in our driving life time. There are just to many obstacles to overcome. Maybe 50 - 100 years from now SDC's will be common but there will still be cars driven by people also.


There are very few obstacles left to overcome. The effort to get them on the road is in the end game. By the way, they are already on the road in some places so it's too late for predictions.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Good luck getting autonomous robot cars licensed.


Most states don't have laws against them so no luck needed.



rtaatl said:


> We've already covered how airplanes aren't even close to being fully autonomous so let's not start that again.


Pilots for one of the newest planes, the Dreamliner, only fly six minutes per flight on average and that's not even needed. So yes, they are nearly fully autonomous and could be fully if we so choose.



REX HAVOC said:


> What happens if your self driving car messes up and gets a ticket for running a red light. Who pays. The company that made the software or the owner of the car? It seems that cities would not be able to charge the car owners for infractions they had no control over. The cities will suffer from huge revenue losses from not being able to charge anyone and thousands of traffic police will become non-essential.


Who cares who pays or if traffic cops become non-essential. That's a good thing.


----------



## 60000_TaxiFares

REX HAVOC said:


> What happens if your self driving car messes up *and gets a ticket for running* a red light. Who pays. The company that made the software or the owner of the car? It seems that cities would not be able to charge the car owners for infractions they had no control over. The cities will suffer from huge revenue losses from not being able to charge anyone and thousands of traffic police will become non-essential.


You're right these robot cars could collapse city finances nationwide.... what will they do in a few short years?

Nah, they will figure out who(m) to get the 150 bucks from..

The gas stations!! what will they do in a few years when at least 20 percent of the light cars (and trucks) are electric??? How will the electric stations stay in business without selling cigarettes ??? Smoking (anything) is dangerous....

Stay Safe

CC


----------



## UberIsAllFubared

Would love to see a driverless car negotiate LAX.


----------



## RamzFanz

UberIsAllFubared said:


> Would love to see a driverless car negotiate LAX.


Every human driver has to figure out how to negotiate LAX without an internal map and being able to make trillions of observations and decisions a second. With SDCs only one does and they do have internal maps and can make trillions of observations and decisions a second.


----------



## SafeT

You will see Uber driverless cars everywhere, count on it! Right after you see Scotty beaming you up to the Enterprise. Then for sure! Just click your heels together and smoke some more wacky tobacky.


----------



## 60000_TaxiFares

RamzFanz said:


> People won't get to "demand" anything. It will mostly be between the car owners, the manufacturer, and the courts, just as it is now. I'm confused as to why people think suddenly the way the world runs has to change.
> 
> He has none in this regard.
> 
> SDCs are already on the road in the Netherlands in traffic. They absolutely will be driving on the same roads as humans and have for millions of miles already.
> 
> What happens if they want to exit? They slow, speed up, or miss their exit, same as you.
> 
> A flat? What would you do?
> 
> Trains? Because there is no economic motivation. The savings would be negligible, unlike in cars.
> 
> Yes, there are, on the road already.
> 
> Pilots for one of the newest planes, the Dreamliner, only fly six minutes per flight on average and that's not even needed. So yes, they are nearly fully autonomous and could be fully if we so choose.
> 
> Who cares who pays or* if traffic cops become* non-essential. That's a good thing.


I'm sure *self driving*, *flying* and eventually even *molecular transport* may be in the future, but it seems all academic for purposes here

For most individuals, the fact that they are *even contracting with these various timeshare companies*, or planning on *still contracting* _*5 months from now*_, indicates _*many have *(current, right now)_ *problems far exceeding* developments with self driving vehicles , drones, black helicopters (black drones now?), traffic cops, Ben Affleck....

Stay Safe

CC


----------



## Uberchampion

If human driven cars and autonomous vehicles are on the road he is right; there will be accidents. 

On a side note, autonomous cars means he and a bunch of his friends are out of a job.


----------



## RamzFanz

Uberchampion said:


> On a side note, autonomous cars means he and a bunch of his friends are out of a job.


Pretty much and excellent point.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz I admire your confidence in the future and your ability to believe in your own fantasies. You should start up a company. I imagine you could bilk investors for $billions too!

On the other hand it's kind of annoying "arguing" with you because you just throw out a bunch of vague predictions with no backing. You can't be proven wrong because what you say is pure speculation and potentially years away. And when confronted with your silly predictions you point to shadowy "experts" to back up your points.

You're a great troll though. I commend you.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz said:


> People won't get to "demand" anything. It will mostly be between the car owners, the manufacturer, and the courts, just as it is now. I'm confused as to why people think suddenly the way the world runs has to change.


The Federal Government has a lot to say about how cars are made.



> He has none in this regard.


Please cite your sources.



> They absolutely will be driving on the same roads as humans *and have for millions of miles already.*


Please cite your sources for the "millions of miles" comment.



> There are very few obstacles left to overcome.


Please tell us specifically why you state this.



> Most states don't have laws against them so no luck needed.


Please tell us what states do and don't have laws against them.



> Pilots for one of the newest planes, the Dreamliner, only fly six minutes per flight on average and that's not even needed.


Please cite your source(s) for 1) the six-minute comment and 2) the fact that pilots aren't even needed in the Dreamliner.

Thanks very much for backing up your claims!


----------



## Uberchampion

4736353377384555736 said:


> The Federal Government has a lot to say about how cars are made.
> 
> Please cite your sources.
> 
> Please cite your sources for the "millions of miles" comment.
> 
> Please tell us specifically why you state this.
> 
> Please tell us what states do and don't have laws against them.
> 
> Please cite your source(s) for 1) the six-minute comment and 2) the fact that pilots aren't even needed in the Dreamliner.
> 
> Thanks very much for backing up your claims!


Haha....it's like high school/university all over again, citations citations citations! Clarify your reference!


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Uberchampion said:


> Haha....it's like high school/university all over again, citations citations citations! Clarify your reference!


Well, when people make random speculative comments with no backing, that's the only way you can keep 'em honest.


----------



## Uberchampion

4736353377384555736 said:


> Well, when people make random speculative comments with no backing, that's the only way you can keep 'em honest.


Agreed, however this is a forum made up of speculation and outright bullshit. Take it all with a grain of salt


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> RamzFanz I admire your confidence in the future and your ability to believe in your own fantasies. You should start up a company. I imagine you could bilk investors for $billions too!
> 
> On the other hand it's kind of annoying "arguing" with you because you just throw out a bunch of vague predictions with no backing. You can't be proven wrong because what you say is pure speculation and potentially years away. And when confronted with your silly predictions you point to shadowy "experts" to back up your points.
> 
> You're a great troll though. I commend you.


I study this subject extensively. I think I have a pretty good layman grasp on where we are, what's left to be done, and when it should be.

If you want to know something specific with sources, I'd be happy to discuss this subject. For most on here I don't do that for because they don't care what the reality is, they just want to throw out uneducated opinions because they hate Uber and hate the idea that SDCs are coming and coming soon.

This is an incomplete sampling of companies that are heavily invested in making this happen:


----------



## Rick Deckard

zordac said:


> Lots of people said flying cars were a pipe dream too.


Flying cars like my spinner don't need wings, they use a eMDrive.

NASAs slated to test one in space soon.


----------



## Uberchampion

RamzFanz said:


> I study this subject extensively. I think I have a pretty good layman grasp on where we are, what's left to be done, and when it should be.
> 
> If you want to know something specific with sources, I'd be happy to discuss this subject. For most on here I don't do that for because they don't care what the reality is, they just want to throw out uneducated opinions because they hate Uber and hate the idea that SDCs are coming and coming soon.
> 
> This is an incomplete sampling of companies that are heavily invested in making this happen:
> 
> View attachment 60253


Makes sense. Most of the companies will make huge profits selling autonomous vehicles or save huge on Opex by integrating autonomous vehicles and getting ridown of people.


----------



## Rick Deckard

stuber said:


> Drones and flying autonomous cars are probably an easier problem than figuring out how to mix robot cars with human drivers occupying the same roads. I'll bet we see the drones first. I know a guy who is currently building the control software. They will be testing the system soon with a scale model city in an airplane hangar.


This guy designed the propulsion system they will use so long as the NASA space tests work.


----------



## rtaatl

RamzFanz said:


> Pilots for one of the newest planes, the Dreamliner, only fly six minutes per flight on average and that's not even needed. So yes, they are nearly fully autonomous and could be fully if we so choose.


I'm sure that statistic was thrown out there by the manufacturer....and maybe it's true in a perfect scenario. Fly an airplane and tell me how often perfect things go. No, ATC never gives anyone vectors anymore...lol! How is the automated airplane going to change course. Satellite and radar coverage isn't perfect and sending commands remotely will have enough latency to where the response is too slow and potentially off course. Then who exactly is going to be sending these commands. Definitely not the controllers on the ground, they don't work nor are responsible for the airlines. It will never be fully automated...just to many variables that can happen from a to b. Let alone all the other things that can be encountered on the ground with a driverless car...that's openly exposed to a lot more people. Remember the 'people suck theory'. Deep down most are opportunistic and will take advantage of a situation they feel they can get away with. Not good in this scenario.


----------



## Rick Deckard

RamzFanz said:


> Every human driver has to figure out how to negotiate LAX without an internal map and being able to make trillions of observations and decisions a second. With SDCs only one does and they do have internal maps and can make trillions of observations and decisions a second.


Yea but a SDC will never have the necessary ability to defy it's safety programming and force itself out into the stream of straffic when none of the A holes will let them in. This will create huge traffic issues. The SDCs will have to be separated from the rest of the traffic so they will only operate in places where they have their own lanes and pre-set routes. Like the people movers in some European places. They have driverless buses that move very slow on a pre-set route. People just have to avoid them. These aren't SDCs, but that's what you will end up with.

THe whole argument isn't worth having at this time, because by the time they could get SDCs up and running we could have eMDrive tech that makes flying cars possible. Hopefully the space test NASA is doing will have a good result.

Bottom line, you won't see Level5 SDCs for 25 years or not at all and if you do they will probably be using eMDrive tech and flying around, so who cares. It's all hype for the stock market.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> The Federal Government has a lot to say about how cars are made.


Yes, they do, after the fact. Auto companies innovate and then if there is an issue, governments regulate. There was no permission granted to Tesla to introduce the autopilot. Tesla, the owners, and the courts will work out its issues until, and if, the feds get involved with new regulations. The NTSB does not because they have no regulatory power.



4736353377384555736 said:


> Please cite your sources.


I won't. If you want to counter my claim, provide and evidence to the contrary. His bio is readily available and I'm not your _go fetch_. He has an aircraft crash and law background, zero engineering, computing, or robotics.



4736353377384555736 said:


> Please cite your sources for the "millions of miles" comment.


https://static.googleusercontent.co.../selfdrivingcar/files/reports/report-0716.pdf

1.8 million by Google Car alone.



4736353377384555736 said:


> Please tell us specifically why you state this.


Because I study this subject. Other than resolving some weather issues, which may have already been resolved by MIT, and very unusual circumstances like recognizing flooding, all they need to do at this point is what they are already doing, mapping, testing, and programing.



4736353377384555736 said:


> Please tell us what states do and don't have laws against them.


You tell me. You have an opinion, back it up. I know of one state that has banned true SDCs and that is California. Others it will come down to court interpretation of current regulations, new regulations, or federal intervention.



4736353377384555736 said:


> Please cite your source(s) for 1) the six-minute comment and 2) the fact that pilots aren't even needed in the Dreamliner.


I do not store every article and study I read and quote. If you want to challenge me on my statement, back it up. I never said pilots weren't needed so that's a strawman.


----------



## rtaatl

Rick Deckard said:


> THe whole argument isn't worth having at this time, because by the time they could get SDCs up and running we could have eMDrive tech that makes flying cars possible. Hopefully the space test NASA is doing will have a good result.


The eMDrive doesn't appear to be a solution for a flying car operating in the troposphere since there is gravity and you still need to account for lift, not just thrust.


----------



## Rick Deckard

RamzFanz said:


> https://static.googleusercontent.co.../selfdrivingcar/files/reports/report-0716.pdf
> 
> 1.8 million by Google Car alone..


Technically 1.8 million is NOT "millions" as you stated.

You present weak evidence for all your claims. You can't say anything more definitive than anyone else regardless of your purported "extensive" study.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> Flying cars like my spinner don't need wings, they use a eMDrive.
> 
> NASAs slated to test one in space soon.


That test is going to be awesome. I hope it jumps into warp and disappears and leaves them slack jawed!

No, but seriously, it's either revolutionary or worthless.


----------



## Rick Deckard

rtaatl said:


> The eMDrive doesn't appear to be a solution for a flying car operating in the troposphere since there is gravity and you still need to account for lift, not just thrust.


No they have potential to work in gravity, they just need a lot of Q. They don't need to go fast like a rocket thruster would in the atmosphere, they can hover. Vertical take off.... they can go directly to space flight.
watch the videos read the papers, this thing is looking legit.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> Technically 1.8 million is NOT "millions" as you stated.
> 
> You present weak evidence for all your claims. You can't say anything more definitive than anyone else regardless of your purported "extensive" study.


_Technically_ there are many many more players worldwide than Uber road testing and have been for over a decade so I obviously was not providing a comprehensive reply. I lopped off 1.8 million. It's fairly simple for _someone who really wants to know_, which most here don't, to go look for themselves. I don't play go fetch with them. They can look or they can close their eyes, plug their ears, and go na na na na na all day, I don't care.

In truth, because simulator miles are the exact same as road miles, that number should be far far bigger. Like 3 million a day bigger.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> You can't say anything more definitive than anyone else regardless of your purported "extensive" study.


Definitive? No one can speak definitively on SDCs. There are far too many projects and they make strides daily. So that's another red herring.

What one _can_ do is read and_ learn_ and get an idea of where they are.

Everything I say comes from reports or the researchers themselves. Debunk a single one. Have at it.


----------



## Undermensch

Elephant said:


> Fully autonomous car is possible only when we have seprate specially designed road for them.


Humans: sidewalks

Self Driving Cars: roads

There you go.


----------



## Rick Deckard

RamzFanz said:


> Definitive? No one can speak definitively on SDCs. There are far too many projects and they make strides daily. So that's another red herring.
> 
> What one _can_ do is read and_ learn_ and get an idea of where they are.
> 
> Everything I say comes from reports or the researchers themselves. Debunk a single one. Have at it.


People don't have to prove a negative. The burden is on you to present enough evidence to convince us all that SDCs are coming. The NTSB flatly says NO they aren't so that's a large preventing factor for you to overcome not to mention the years of technical work required to make Level 5 SDCs exist.

So good luck making us believe you, meanwhile until we do I'm winning the argument.


----------



## RamzFanz

Undermensch said:


> Humans: sidewalks
> 
> Self Driving Cars: roads
> 
> There you go.


I don't think I've ever told you this but I really like your brevity and logic.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz said:


> Everything I say comes from reports or the researchers themselves. Debunk a single one. Have at it.


That's not how arguments work. If you make a claim, you back it up. You don't expect others to do so. Especially when you make a half dozen outlandish claims in one post and then point to some unnamed "experts." Stop wasting our time with your unsubstantiated fantasies.


----------



## Undermensch

4736353377384555736 said:


> RamzFanz I admire your confidence in the future and your ability to believe in your own fantasies. You should start up a company. I imagine you could bilk investors for $billions too!
> 
> On the other hand it's kind of annoying "arguing" with you because you just throw out a bunch of vague predictions with no backing. You can't be proven wrong because what you say is pure speculation and potentially years away. And when confronted with your silly predictions you point to shadowy "experts" to back up your points.
> 
> You're a great troll though. I commend you.


You, on the other hand, contributed a lot of facts???

Oh no... You actually didn't address the discussion topic at all and instead talked about what you think of a participant in the discussion.

Useless.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Uberchampion said:


> Agreed, however this is a forum made up of speculation and outright bullshit. Take it all with a grain of salt


True, but RamzFanz is one of the most prolific BSer here.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Undermensch said:


> You, on the other hand, contributed a lot of facts???
> 
> Oh no... You actually didn't address the discussion topic at all and instead talked about what you think of a participant in the discussion.
> 
> Useless.


Oh yeah well yoooou didn't post facts either so there nyah nyah nyah. Uselesser!

Tell me what goofy speculation I posted in this thread. None.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> People don't have to prove a negative. The burden is on you to present enough evidence to convince us all that SDCs are coming. The NTSB flatly says NO they aren't so that's a large preventing factor for you to overcome not to mention the years of technical work required to make Level 5 SDCs exist.
> 
> So good luck making us believe you, meanwhile until we do I'm winning the argument.


I don't want to prove it. I'm looking forward to their udder dismay and shock in 2-3 years (or less, depending on who you believe). I'm not playing the rapid fire _prove it_ game. If a sensible and honest person wants to discuss a particular point, I'm all in. I don't feed the trolls.

No, the NTSB did not say that, the chair who has zero robotics or engineering background said it, and he said it in a manner that would have screamed ignorance to you if you had been paying attention to the subject. I will roll with the science and leave the bureaucrats with the bureaucracy.

Hey, why is the NTSB putting out guidelines for a technology that isn't going to exist?


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> That's not how arguments work. If you make a claim, you back it up. You don't expect others to do so. Especially when you make a half dozen outlandish claims in one post and then point to some unnamed "experts." Stop wasting our time with your unsubstantiated fantasies.


OK, I have time so I'll play the game. Name ONE that you don't believe.


----------



## Slim Pete

zordac said:


> Lots of people said flying cars were a pipe dream too.


Reading this thread, I get shocked at what the critical reasoning skills of the average uber driver is.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz said:


> I don't want to prove it. I'm looking forward to their *udder dismay* and shock in 2-3 years (or less, depending on who you believe).


Udder dismay.



> I'm not playing the rapid fire _prove it_ game.


That much is quite clear. So why are you posting unsubstantiated information as if it's hard fact? You should put "In my opinion" in front of everything you say and you won't get such backlash.

We all have opinions here. That's not the problem. The problem is you presenting yours as if it's fact. And since you can't and won't even try to back up your claims, they aren't factual.


----------



## Rick Deckard

Level 2 already exists. We are talking about level 5. It ain't going to happen; at least not in the way you think.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz said:


> OK, I have time so I'll play the game. Name ONE that you don't believe.


Great, I don't believe any of what you say. Back it up. Or admit it's speculation and opinion. Either way works for us.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> Great, I don't believe any of what you say. Back it up. Or admit it's speculation and opinion. Either way works for us.


Exactly, same game, different day. Thanks for playing.

Name one or don't, I took your challenge.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> That much is quite clear. So why are you posting unsubstantiated information as if it's hard fact? You should put "In my opinion" in front of everything you say and you won't get such backlash.


Name one.

Also note that I DO usually say in my opinion when it's my opinion and have clearly explained that I'm repeating what experts have said. When something is obviously stating an opinion like someone saying they are going to use a non-proven engine technology in a flying car, the distinction is hardly needed.

I noticed you didn't call out Rick Deckard when he stated "THe whole argument isn't worth having at this time, because by the time they could get SDCs up and running we could have eMDrive tech that makes flying cars possible." as if it wasn't pure opinion or any of his other statements of "fact" that are not.

Please support this statement "He's had decades of experience in this regard." (in reference to the NTSB chair statement)

So Rick Deckard , please support the above with an _eMDrive is imminent for use in flying cars_ study or any actual expert opinion. Thanks.


----------



## Slim Pete

Full automation costs a LOT.

You guys know how much fixing just a front bumper on an autopilot equipped Tesla costs?

12k.

Getting the technology to work reliably all the time is one thing. Take into account freezing temperatures, desert heat and constant jarring of potholes, and taking into account people keep their cars 10+ years, how much is all this tech going to cost to keep running reliably, even with economies of scale? 


Can the average American afford it, for it to become commonplace?

Here I have the latest model most advanced smartphone in the world, less than a year old, and it freezes for a few seconds, maybe once every few weeks.
What happens if an automated car freezes while travelling at 75 mph, even for 5 seconds? Can you set back the clock, once its occupants have been reduced to road pizza?

Think of planes' autopilot and the speech to text feature on phones.

Never in history has a commercial flight taken off or landed on its own. Pilots must do it manually. Autopilot only helps because at 35k feet up, you don't have too many traffic lights or lane changes.

Talk of speech to text software. I use it all the time, and it works fairly well. But I still have to read it and correct it before I send out a text or an email.

Point is technology will make driving easier, a lot easier, but full automation, at an affordable price is at least 40 years away at minimum.

Sure, someday our grandchildren will look back at human driven cars the same way we look back at the horse drawn carriage, but this is not happening any time soon.


----------



## Rick Deckard

NASA is sending one into orbit to test. I will let the people funding the mission write the paper.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#54d684ef692c


----------



## Trebor

I bet this jerkoff was one of the first to get a Tesla with autonomous capabilities.


----------



## Slim Pete

RamzFanz said:


> I'm looking forward to their udder dismay and shock in 2-3 years (or less, depending on who you believe).


So you're actually saying, in 2 to 3 years or less, we're going to have self driving cars???????????


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> NASA is sending one into orbit to test. I will let the people funding the mission write the paper.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#54d684ef692c


Yes, I know, I read the science and know how it works. You stated as if fact that these engines would be able to be used in flying cars before self driving cars would be possible when one, your engine, is 100% unproven in that capacity, while SDCs have millions of miles already. Can you support this? Was this just opinion?


----------



## RamzFanz

Slim Pete said:


> So you're actually saying, in 2 to 3 years or less, we're going to have self driving cars???????????


No, we already have self driving cars. I'm saying they go on sale to the public or as TNC fleets in 2-3 years. Well, I'm not actually, Musk and many others are, I'm just repeating what they say. To be fair, most of those involved are predicting 2-5 years for their own products.


----------



## Slim Pete

Keep in mind a lot of this drivel about full automation in cars being introduced in the next 5 years, is put forth by CEOs concerned about the value of their stock options, their funding sources and their corporate brand perception.


----------



## Slim Pete

RamzFanz said:


> I'm saying they go on sale to the public or as TNC fleets in 2-3 years.


So in your view, self driving cars could be used as TNC fleets in 2 to 3 years?

If you genuinely believe that is BOTH technically and financially, feasible in 2 to 3 short years, well then all i can say is ...just maybe as it's late at night, you might have had too much to drink.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> Yes there are, on the road already.


You believe there are fully automated cars (no driver required) already driving on the road? Where do you think this is happening?


> Pilots for one of the newest planes, the Dreamliner, only fly six minutes per flight on average and that's not even needed. So yes, they are nearly fully autonomous and could be fully if we so choose.


True, but pilots are still required. The relevancy for us is this - cars may one day reach full automation capability, but as to when drivers can be dispensed with; that's anyone's guess.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> The SDCs will have to be separated from the rest of the traffic so they will only operate in places where they have their own lanes and pre-set routes.


Please support this with any study or expert opinion.



Slim Pete said:


> Full automation costs a LOT.


Not really. Teslas cost a lot. Full automation electronic packages are estimated to be in the $5,000 range when all is said and done. I think the original FLIR on a Google car costed $70,000? They're down to hundreds now and expected to be less than $100 next year.

Technology is cheap and high demand technology only gets cheaper.



Slim Pete said:


> You guys know how much fixing just a front bumper on an autopilot equipped Tesla costs?
> 
> 12k.


See above.



Slim Pete said:


> Getting the technology to work reliably all the time is one thing. Take into account freezing temperatures, desert heat and constant jarring of potholes, and taking into account people keep their cars 10+ years, how much is all this tech going to cost to keep running reliably, even with economies of scale?
> 
> Can the average American afford it, for it to become commonplace?


In my opinion, most people won't own their own. They will start and predominantly be TNCs. I believe almost all of the car companies will provide the SDCs at cost and make their money on the TNC fare. GM is completely changing their business model from consumer product to mobility company as are probably most auto companies.



Slim Pete said:


> Here I have the latest model most advanced smartphone in the world, less than a year old, and it freezes for a few seconds, maybe once every few weeks.
> What happens if an automated car freezes while travelling at 75 mph, even for 5 seconds? Can you set back the clock, once its occupants have been reduced to road pizza?


Well, you're comparing apples to oranges. Your phone is a rock compared to an SDC computer. Or, should I say computers? Google cars have redundant systems. One constantly (trillions of times a second) checks the other and takes over if there are issues. These are far more robust systems than what you might be picturing. Of course, they could fail and even kill. The question isn't if they will kill, it's how many. If we could go from 1.2M dead and over 2M injured a year to 100,000 killed and 200,000 injured, shouldn't we?

A lot of people think SDCs will have to be perfect or near perfect. They don't. Liability is considered in pricing. They will fail and that cost is covered in insurance. Tesla is so confident in the cost/risk assessment, they are considering self insuring and giving it "free" (included) with the car.



Slim Pete said:


> Think of planes' autopilot and the speech to text feature on phones.
> 
> Never in history has a commercial flight taken off or landed on its own. Pilots must do it manually. Autopilot only helps because at 35k feet up, you don't have too many traffic lights or lane changes.


I do think of aircraft autopilot. They are mostly ancient. The newer ones are amazing, and yes, they can and do land themselves, so you should have checked the "Never in history" thing. I'm not aware of commercial planes that take off themselves but that's probably more of an air traffic control system issue than technology. If you move away from "commercial" flight, drones do both take off and land themselves all the time, so it's not a limitation.



Slim Pete said:


> Point is technology will make driving easier, a lot easier, but full automation, at an affordable price is at least 40 years away at minimum.


Musk says 2, others say 3, most say 4-5, you say 40, we shall see.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slim Pete said:


> Keep in mind a lot of this drivel about full automation in cars being introduced in the next 5 years, is put forth by CEOs concerned about the value of their stock options, their funding sources and their corporate brand perception.


Well, yes, and also robotics experts and independent experts who are observing. Calling it drivel is unreasonable. It's trillions in investment and a massive part of robotic and engineering academia.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slim Pete said:


> So in your view, self driving cars could be used as TNC fleets in 2 to 3 years?
> 
> If you genuinely believe that is BOTH technically and financially, feasible in 2 to 3 short years, well then all i can say is ...just maybe as it's late at night, you might have had too much to drink.


I think Musk was being pretty optimistic with 2 years. I personally think 3-4. Most auto and tech companies, IIRC, are saying 4-5. Some are a few more years out.

Finances are not an issue. This may be the best financed single technology project ever undertaken by humankind. If there is a major auto or related tech company not involved and investing, I don't know who it is.

Oh, and they are already on the road carrying passengers in the Netherlands so predictions at this point are kind of pointless. The real question is when do they proliferate.


----------



## Slim Pete

RamzFanz said:


> Please support this with any study or expert opinion.
> 
> Not really. Teslas cost a lot. Full automation electronic packages are estimated to be in the $5,000 range when all is said and done. I think the original FLIR on a Google car costed $70,000? They're down to hundreds now and expected to be less than $100 next year.
> 
> Technology is cheap and high demand technology only gets cheaper.
> 
> See above.
> 
> In my opinion, most people won't own their own. They will start and predominantly be TNCs. I believe almost all of the car companies will provide the SDCs at cost and make their money on the TNC fare. GM is completely changing their business model from consumer product to mobility company as are probably most auto companies.
> 
> Well, you're comparing apples to oranges. Your phone is a rock compared to an SDC computer. Or, should I say computers? Google cars have redundant systems. One constantly (trillions of times a second) checks the other and takes over if there are issues. These are far more robust systems than what you might be picturing. Of course, they could fail and even kill. The question isn't if they will kill, it's how many. If we could go from 1.2M dead and over 2M injured a year to 100,000 killed and 200,000 injured, shouldn't we?
> 
> A lot of people think SDCs will have to be perfect or near perfect. They don't. Liability is considered in pricing. They will fail and that cost is covered in insurance. Tesla is so confident in the cost/risk assessment, they are considering self insuring and giving it "free" (included) with the car.
> 
> I do think of aircraft autopilot. They are mostly ancient. The newer ones are amazing, and, yes, they can and do land themselves, so you should have checked the "Never in history" thing. I'm not aware of commercial planes that take off themselves, but that's probably more of an air traffic control system issue than technology. If you move away from "commercial" flight, drones do both take off and land themselves all the time, so it's not a limitation.
> 
> Musk says 2, others say 3, most say 4-5, you say 40, we shall see.


I stand firm in my belief that a completely self driving car, 100% automated and self driving, in any and all weather conditions, is AT LEAST 40 years away, if not longer, .......so I have to respectfully disagree with you.
But thanks for taking the time out to contribute to this thread.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slim Pete said:


> I stand firm in my belief that a completely self driving car, 100% automated and self driving, in any and all weather conditions, is AT LEAST 40 years away, if not longer, .......so I have to respectfully disagree with you.
> But thanks for taking the time out to contribute to this thread.


I don't agree with your description of what an SDC is as humans can't _in any and all_ _weather conditions_ in any craft we drive or pilot but, hey, we all have opinions and are entitled to them. Have a great evening!


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> Oh, and they are already on the road carrying passengers in the Netherlands so predictions at this point are kind of pointless. The real question is when do they proliferate.


WRONG. it was a trial run in one of the Dutch towns & not in a city. 
Changes needed to infrastructure & driver *ON BOARD. Research & read properly.*

Mentioned to you in the other OP Uber eyes $10 TRILLION (with a T) a Year Global Market to do your RESEARCH.
STOP b/s. Gave you the source too "SALESMAN".
You study science & discount NTSB, a Govt. body. They make the rules. Accept it or look the other way. Don't get your underwear all knotted because the answers are not to your liking from the Head of NTSB. He does not have to know Robotics, *there are smart people working for him. They present their findings to him & he discusses the problems & solutions.* Tomorrow you will discount scientists because they don't agree with you.

Who you think your Govt. will first go to when they want to draw rules & regulations? NTSB, Uber or RamzFranz.
ANSWER: * NTSB*


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> I study this subject extensively. I think I have a pretty good layman grasp on where we are, what's left to be done, and when it should be.
> 
> If you want to know something specific with sources, I'd be happy to discuss this subject. For most on here I don't do that for because they don't care what the reality is, they just want to throw out uneducated opinions because they hate Uber and hate the idea that SDCs are coming and coming soon.
> 
> This is an incomplete sampling of companies that are heavily invested in making this happen:
> 
> View attachment 60253


You have attested your theory like a model "SALESMAN"
PICTURE OF different Companies in BUILDING BLOCKS. 
That is how* con artists* sell their stories & products. They state "EVERYBODY who is SOMEBODY" has purchased the product or their b/s story.


----------



## Rick Deckard

RamzFanz said:


> Please support this with any study or expert opinion.
> .


I don't have to, this is a common opinion shared by many people including experts and it is the system that L2 vehicles use now.






walking would be faster than this slow pool ride to hell.


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> You believe there are fully automated cars (no driver required) already driving on the road? Where do you think this is happening?


Yes.

The Netherlands.



DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> True, but pilots are still required. The relevancy for us is this - cars may one day reach full automation capability, but as to when drivers can be dispensed with; that's anyone's guess.


Many experts, including Google Car experts, believe human intervention is a detriment because of our slow reactions and bad decisions. Just like airline pilots. We can't possible know and do what a computer can. If Google is on the right path, and it appears they are, when they launch they won't even have human controls.

Humans can't fly stealth planes. Computers fly. Humans in the cockpit just tell them through interfaces (joystick or yoke) what they want to do and the computer does it for them. A human would crash every time. Automation is further along than you might think.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> WRONG. it was a trial run in one of the Dutch towns & not in a city.
> Changes needed to infrastructure & driver *ON BOARD. Research & read properly.*
> 
> Mentioned to you in the other OP Uber eyes $10 TRILLION (with a T) a Year Global Market to do your RESEARCH.
> STOP b/s. Gave you the source too "SALESMAN".
> You study science & discount NTSB, a Govt. body. They make the rules. Accept it or look the other way. Don't get your underwear all knotted because the answers are not to your liking from the Head of NTSB. He does not have to know Robotics, *there are smart people working for him. They present their findings to him & he discusses the problems & solutions.* Tomorrow you will discount scientists because they don't agree with you.
> 
> Who you think your Govt. will first go to when they want to draw rules & regulations? NTSB, Uber or RamzFranz.
> ANSWER: * NTSB*


I think you're looking at the wrong project and don't have up to date information. They went live in May on open roads.

No, the NTSB does not make the rules. They have no regulatory powers. They make suggestions.

Who will the government go to? Lobbyist. Lobbyist will influence the outcome far more than the NTSB IF this is even a federal intervention, which I doubt.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> You have attested your theory like a model "SALESMAN"
> PICTURE OF different Companies in BUILDING BLOCKS.
> That is how* con artists* sell their stories & products. They state "EVERYBODY who is SOMEBODY" has purchased the product or their b/s story.


Now you're just raging. Calm down, SDCs are coming whether you get upset or not. Just be prepared.


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> I think you're looking at the wrong project and don't have up to date information. They went live in May on open roads.
> 
> No, the NTSB does not make the rules. They have no regulatory powers. They make suggestions.
> 
> Who will the government go to? Lobbyist. Lobbyist will influence the outcome far more than the NTSB IF this is even a federal intervention, which I doubt.


There you go again. You are Right & all are WRONG. Indignant person. Not going to play Fetch with you.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> I don't have to, this is a common opinion shared by many people including experts and it is the system that L2 vehicles use now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> walking would be faster than this slow pool ride to hell.


They moved from closed course testing to live road service in May.

You have made a lot of statements that are pure opinion and then called me out. I gave you a chance to pick ONE statement for me to support but you won't and also won't support yours. I think we are done. Keep telling people flying cars based on technology that violates Newton's 3rd law are coming soon, I'll stick with technology that's on the road today.


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> Now you're just raging. Calm down, SDCs are coming whether you get upset or not. Just be prepared.


No rage. Again another tactic used by b/s & con artist Salesman. SDC's are the future & its coming, we all know it but its not en masse tomorrow or in three years. But as per you its tomorrow.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> There you go again. You are Right & all are WRONG. Indignant person. Not going to play Fetch with you.


*First driverless buses travel public roads in the Netherlands*


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> *First driverless buses travel public roads in the Netherlands*


Read the Ministry review & write-up.

That means you don't have access to the latest article. Sorry conman. Your article is outdated & from January 2016.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> No rage. Again another tactic used by b/s & con artist Salesman. SDC's are the future & its coming, we all know it but its not en masse tomorrow or in three years. But as per you its tomorrow.


Nope. I disagree with the optimistic predictions. I think 3-4 years for first live introduction of large numbers and probably 8-10 for proliferation and them getting preferential treatment. Thanks for summing up my opinions without asking though.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> Yes.
> 
> The Netherlands.


Nonsense.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> Read the Ministry review & write-up.
> 
> That means you don't have access to the latest article. Sorry conman. Your article is outdated & from January 2016.


Sure. Glad to help. Do you have a link?


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> Nonsense.


OK. Glad to have your informed opinion.


----------



## Slim Pete

Undermensch said:


> Humans: sidewalks
> 
> Self Driving Cars: roads
> 
> There you go.


EXCEPT that we don't live in a perfect world.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> OK. Glad to have your informed opinion.


Any time!


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> Any time!


Stay awesome!


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> Read the Ministry review & write-up.
> 
> That means you don't have access to the latest article. Sorry conman. Your article is outdated & from January 2016.


Yeah, I don't play fetch.

I also couldn't care less what a bureaucrat says. I gave you examples of why.


----------



## Rick Deckard

RamzFanz said:


> They moved from closed course testing to live road service in May.
> 
> You have made a lot of statements that are pure opinion and then called me out. I gave you a chance to pick ONE statement for me to support but you won't and also won't support yours. I think we are done. Keep telling people flying cars based on technology that violates Newton's 3rd law are coming soon, I'll stick with technology that's on the road today.


It doesn't violate any of Newton's laws. I've studied it extensively, LOL. Photons are emitted in a standing wave that can't be seen without an interferometer because it cancels itself out like all opposing waves will. I provided all the evidence to your arguments already in the links I have included but you refuse to look at the evidence. watch the videos and STFU


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> It doesn't violate any of Newton's laws. I've studied it extensively, LOL. Photons are emitted in a standing wave that can't be seen without an interferometer. I provided all the evidence to your arguments already in the links I have included but you refuse to look at the evidence. watch the videos and STFU


Those videos are ancient.

I'm not against your engine working, I'm against you claiming for a fact they could make flying cars from an unproven technology before self driving cars are on the road and that SDCs will take 25 years which is ridiculous.

By the way, your flying car would probably have to be self flying to have any value to the public. You're kind of working against yourself.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> Stay awesome!


Ok.


----------



## Slim Pete

RamzFanz said:


> *First driverless buses travel public roads in the Netherlands*


This thread is truly becoming a case study in stupidity.

It's beyond irritating to have somebody compare these buses to automated vehicles. Really.

First of all, these buses have a max speed of 25 kms per hour. That's the equivalent of 17 miles per hour.

Second, their progress on the road is monitored via video link by real humans.

Third, they drive only on preset routes, only in good weather, and only during daylight.

I don't know what you've been drinking or what type of drugs you're on, but comparing this to truly automated technology is insane beyond imagination.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slim Pete said:


> EXCEPT that we don't live in a perfect world.


Nor will we ever nor do we need to. Just better, not perfect.


----------



## Rick Deckard

RamzFanz said:


> Those videos are ancient.
> 
> I'm not against your engine working, I'm against you claiming for a fact they could make flying cars from an unproven technology before self driving cars are on the road and that SDCs will take 25 years which is ridiculous.
> 
> By the way, your flying car would probably have to be self flying to have any value to the public. You're kind of working against yourself.


You look pretty ignorant, by not even fact checking that statement. This has all taken place since 2001 when Shawyer created the theory. THat's ancient I suppose for a 22 year old.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slim Pete said:


> This thread is truly becoming a case study in stupidity.
> 
> It's beyond irritating to have somebody compare these buses to automated vehicles. Really.
> 
> First of all, these buses have a max speed of 25 kms per hour. That's the equivalent of 17 miles per hour.
> 
> Second, their progress on the road is monitored via video link by real humans.
> 
> Third, they drive only on preset routes, only in good weather, and only during daylight.
> 
> I don't know what you've been drinking or what type of drugs you're on, but comparing this to truly automated technology is insane beyond imagination.


It makes no difference. It's like saying cars will never happen because the first car had a rudder and broke down all the time. It was a first, it happened, and now it exists. The speed and route limitations are imposed, not a technological limit. Vehicles with NO human controls or remote driving are carrying people. That's a self driving car.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> You look pretty ignorant, by not even fact checking that statement. This has all taken place since 2001 when Shawyer created the theory. THat's ancient I suppose for a 22 year old.


You lost me. Are you saying there are flying cars with your hypothetical engine that exist like SDCs do?

By the way, do you know when the first SDC prototype drove? (hint, it's not this century)

We're comparing an unproven non-prototype to a technology almost a century into its evolution that is on the road today with millions of miles of self driving.


----------



## Rick Deckard

RamzFanz said:


> Those videos are ancient.
> 
> I'm not against your engine working, I'm against you claiming for a fact they could make flying cars from an unproven technology before self driving cars are on the road and that SDCs will take 25 years which is ridiculous.
> 
> By the way, your flying car would probably have to be self flying to have any value to the public. You're kind of working against yourself.


Of course they will be able to use self guiding technology. It's much easier to create that tech than it is to driverless around on random streets all day.

Human transporting hover drones will be the way we get around in the future. Your SDCs will go the way of the Dodo once the eMDrive gets developed. You remind me of every chump that has one of those "hover" boards hidden in their closest. lame


----------



## Slim Pete

4736353377384555736 said:


> True, but RamzFanz is one of the most prolific BSer here.


And that's an understatement.


----------



## Rick Deckard

RamzFanz said:


> You lost me. Are you saying there are flying cars with your hypothetical engine that exist like SDCs do?
> 
> By the way, do you know when the first SDC prototype drove? (hint, it's not this century)
> 
> We're comparing an unproven non-prototype to a technology almost a century into its evolution that is on the road today with millions of miles of self driving.


No we aren't. There are NO Level 5 SDCs in existence. It's still a unproven invention. The potential is there but has many hurdles. Same as eMDrive.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> Human transporting hover drones will be the way we get around in the future. Your SDCs will go the way of the Dodo once the eMDrive gets developed. You remind me of every chump that has one of those "hover" boards hidden in their closest. lame


And those hover drones will use SDC technology that is real and being developed today for SDCs. You've missed a step in the evolution.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> No we aren't. There are NO Level 5 SDCs in existence. It's still a unproven invention. The potential is there but has many hurdles. Same as eMDrive.


OK, first of all, almost no one uses the 5 level ratings, most use the 4. It's not unproven because they are on the road traveling millions of miles. Proof of concept exists. It IS possible but there are still hurdles to coexist with humans and deal with most weather.

Your hover car doesn't exist. It's not flown a single mile. It may never fly a single mile. We don't even know if the engine works outside of the lab. How about we wait the months or years to prove the engine is even a workable engine in space before we claim hover cars are around the corner?


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Well I'm bored with this discussion. Signing off this thread. It's impossible to debate with someone who just spouts out random predictions and then expects everyone to prove him wrong.

The sun is going to explode 20 years from today. All the experts say so. Prove me wrong.

So silly and such a waste of my time.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> Well I'm bored with this discussion. Signing off this thread. It's impossible to debate with someone who just spouts out random predictions and then expects everyone to prove him wrong.
> 
> The sun is going to explode 20 years from today. All the experts say so. Prove me wrong.
> 
> So silly and such a waste of my time.


I would be happy to prove you wrong if that is your belief. Of course, I will have to go off what we know and believe currently according to actual experts and what we can and have observed.

Most experts think the sun will expand greatly eating up the earth as a red giant and then implode (not explode, stars don't explode until they implode), but not into a supernova because it's too small, and it will be a billion or more years. So, based on the physics as we know them, mine sounds like a reasonable assumption, while yours does not, but I'm no expert.

Stay amazing! Science is your friend!


----------



## Rick Deckard

RamzFanz said:


> OK, first of all, almost no one uses the 5 level ratings, most use the 4. It's not unproven because they are on the road traveling millions of miles. Proof of concept exists. It IS possible but there are still hurdles to coexist with humans.
> 
> Your hover car doesn't exist. It's not flown a single mile. It may never fly a single mile. We don't even know if the engine works outside of the lab. How about we wait the months or years to prove the engine is even a workable engine in space before we claim hover cars are around the corner?


We aren't even close to level 3 yet. TESLA proved that. Level 5 is the bar that Google is working towards and they have been clear that they are nowhere near it.

Level 5 is what we all agree is a true SDC because that is whats required to operate in the environment that humans do. If your machine can't do that better than a human your screwed. You have nothing that can drive anywhere near as well or safe as a human yet. My point is that its a mute point because its a tech without a future. Why would we need SDC if we have hover transports that are much more efficient? Since you are operating in a hypothetical world where SDC level 5 is a viable technology I can claim the same thing about eMDrive.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> We aren't even close to level 3 yet. TESLA proved that. Level 5 is the bar that Google is working towards and they have been clear that they are nowhere near it.
> 
> Level 5 is what we all agree is a true SDC because that is whats required to operate in the environment that humans do. If your machine can't do that better than a human your screwed. You have nothing that can drive anywhere near as well or safe as a human yet. My point is that its a mute point because its a tech without a future. Why would we need SDC if we have hover transports that are much more efficient? Since you are operating in a hypothetical world where SDC level 5 is a viable technology I can claim the same thing about eMDrive.


Level 4. Google is working towards level 4, fully autonomous, which doesn't mean infallible. (seriously dude, no one uses the 5 level rating)

Tesla proved they put out a level 2 vehicle. They never claimed otherwise.

We probably do have test vehicles that can drive as well or better than humans, we just have to figure out how to stop humans from crashing into them.

_"Why would we need SDC if we have hover transports that are much more efficient? "_

Because we don't have those? I mean, if you do, get some patents and I'll invest! Oh, and because those "hover transports" will need the SDC technology preparing to be on the road right now.

Technological evolution is in steps.


----------



## Rick Deckard

We don't have Level 3 SDCs yet so you have no proof of concept either. Just decades of development work that might get shelved when a new disruptive tech comes along that does a better job. Admit it, you own a hover board. You wanted a Segway but can't afford it on Uber money.


----------



## RamzFanz

Rick Deckard said:


> We don't have Level 3 SDCs yet so you have no proof of concept either. Just decades of development work that might get shelved when a new disruptive tech comes along that does a better job. Admit it, you own a hover board. You wanted a Segway but can't afford it on Uber money.


I rode a segway once. I thought it was stupid. I've never even considered getting on a hoverboard.

SDCs have millions of miles of proof of concept at near level 4. Did you know the Google car fleet went 7 months with no human required takeover? And that was last year? (Hint: that's proof of concept. Proof of concept doesn't mean it's perfect.)

It's like this: If Elon Muck said he could land a rocket upright on an autonomous barge and did, it makes no difference how many times he failed before or even after, he proved it could be done, no matter what the nay sayres said. Proof of concept, not perfection.

Your hover car concept doesn't even have the first real world test or even an engine that's been demonstrated to work. I like the idea though, but it's science fiction at the moment. The eMDrive is months or years away from even having a chance to show proof of concept.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Jermin8r89 said:


> Today i just got remided about public transportation how much it sucks. Me and me gf were only going 100 miles away as car is getting fixed in the shop. We took 1 bus and 2 trains and took 7 hours with spending $65 plus snacks and drink for extra $10 waiting in boston. Normaly would cost me maybe $10 of fuel and an hour and a half! Also had screaming baby and aome high dude who dropped his water and got all over my bag. Wow humans really dont want control and be miserable all the time. Oh yea my girl was in middle of painful period grabbing me crying when r we gonna be home.


Why didn't you get an uber or rent a car?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

rtaatl said:


> I'm sure that statistic was thrown out there by the manufacturer....and maybe it's true in a perfect scenario. Fly an airplane and tell me how often perfect things go. No, ATC never gives anyone vectors anymore...lol! How is the automated airplane going to change course. Satellite and radar coverage isn't perfect and sending commands remotely will have enough latency to where the response is too slow and potentially off course. Then who exactly is going to be sending these commands. Definitely not the controllers on the ground, they don't work nor are responsible for the airlines. It will never be fully automated...just to many variables that can happen from a to b. Let alone all the other things that can be encountered on the ground with a driverless car...that's openly exposed to a lot more people. Remember the 'people suck theory'. Deep down most are opportunistic and will take advantage of a situation they feel they can get away with. Not good in this scenario.


I was watching a show called "Mighty Ships" today. Each episode showcases a trip of some kind of ship. Really cool show.

Anyway, they have many shops with all sorts of radar etc, for ice, other ships, weather, and so on. But on many of the shows they mention that when weather is rough someone us standing on the brudge, scanning with binoculars because that's still the best way to see small boats that might be hidden behind waves.

When they go in and out of ports a local "pilot" gets on board to take them through the narrows and shallow passages. He knows the hazards, and how they shift, depending on weather, time of year, etc etc ad nauseum (these guys make good money btw). The pilot is indespensable. No machine or computer comes close.

Look at how long it took for chess playing computers to bear a human. Then consider life is more like poker. You can figure out all the odds and play "perfectly" according to those and get beaten by a bluff or a play that makes no sense because the OTHER PERSON is NOT a computer. Just like the other folks on the road.

As I mentioned once before: we don't even have a computer that can do the job of a seeing eye dog anywhere near as well or as cheaply. But we want thousands of self driving cars hurtling around our crappy roads, dodging kids and drunks?

When I was about 10, back in the 70s my mom talked about the birth control pill and how revolutionary it was. But then she said notvto worry as by the time I had to concern myself with birth control there was bound to be something better and foolproof.

Well I'm in my 50s. A perfect birth control NEVER came along. And when I was a teenager AIDS showed up. So even the pill, although it might be a very good method, was stymied by that--a fly in the ointment that was definitely not foreseen. And that's part of it. Things will happen we won't foresee. It will not be smooth sailing. That's why we still need a driver just like we need a person on the bridge at sea in stormy weather, or a dog to take us around the pothole.

I think (my prediction) that autonomous cars will happen much more quickly in Europe. Many areas have better roads and don't have the state system here that just creates more conflict. I think it will be easier for many countries to get themselves organized than here. They also are not as emotionally attached to driving for the most part.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Wow I just skimmed 100 posts of insanity.
Cliffs- RamzFanz knows everything, everyone else knows nothing. Jon Snow.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

RamzFanz said:


> Nor will we ever nor do we need to. Just better, not perfect.


Not true. The sdc has to be MUCH safer than one with a human driving to be accepted by the public. Humans are not rational and statistics driven. If they were, no lottery tickets woukd ever be sold.

Most people know that statistically flying is safer than driving. But they don't FEEL that way. I guarantee they will accept a teenager texting and causing an accident with much more equanimity than a sdc that doesn't recognize a road hazard a human would have seen (if not texting!)

Look at all the press about Google's sdc hitting a bus. Or the Tesla not seeing the truck. How many humans hit buses or trucks each week? But it's not news. A few wrecks, especially with multiple deaths, could stop sdc approval in its tracks.

No. Needs to be much safer than humans, not just "better" to convince the public. Plus, no politician wants to back something and be blamed when it fails and kills people.


----------



## MidnightDriver

RamzFanz said:


> we just have to figure out how to stop humans from crashing into them.


You think that's the biggest problem?
The greatest hurdle is how the AI is going to replace human experience.

*Behind a rolling ball comes a running child
*
We've all seen this phrase on the back of trucks and we all know what it means. We know it because of our experiences, not because it is necessarily logical. We receive all kinds of cues while we are driving and those cues are filtered through our experiences. It's going to take much more than logic programs and motion sensors to understand what that rolling ball means, if it ever does understand.

*
*


----------



## Undermensch

Here are some other nevers that happened:

Hybrid cars would never last when they came out in 2001
Electric cars would never reach production volumes at any price
Microsoft Office would never overtake WordPerfect
iPhone would never replace Blackberry
The entirety of human knowledge would never be available to a computer
The only never that is true is: it's never worth debating with the "never people". The future will happen whether they are ready for it or not.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Why didn't you get an uber or rent a car?


At the time i was comeing from parents house from athol in the middle of nowhere where there arnt many times where you will find an uber


----------



## I have nuts

I'm not putting my life totally into the hands of a computer. Computers can and will fail. My Iphone crashes daily, think about how many times you have had to call your IT department to fix your computer at work, because of some bug or virus. I wouldn't want to be on a highway going 65 mph and the system in your car goes out or has to "reboot". Plus like the article says some people just like to drive. So I don't think we will ever get to a point were people no longer drive.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz said:


> (seriously dude, no one uses the 5 level rating)


Please cite your sources for this statement.



> We probably do have test vehicles that can drive as well or better than humans


Please let us know specifically why you make this statement.

_Thanks again for backing up your statements!_


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Undermensch said:


> Here are some other nevers that happened:
> 
> Hybrid cars would never last when they came out in 2001
> Electric cars would never reach production volumes at any price
> Microsoft Office would never overtake WordPerfect
> iPhone would never replace Blackberry
> The entirety of human knowledge would never be available to a computer
> The only never that is true is: it's never worth debating with the "never people". The future will happen whether they are ready for it or not.


Please let us know specifically where you saw statements that those would never happen, how those statements relate to the posters in this forum, and your concept of the difference between "never happening" and "happening quick enough to save Uber the company."

Otherwise you're putting up a straw man argument. I don't know of anyone stating SDCs will "never happen"


----------



## zordac

RamzFanz said:


> Oh, and they are already on the road carrying passengers in the Netherlands so predictions at this point are kind of pointless. The real question is when do they proliferate.


6 people on a bus going along a closed course for 200m at 5 mph is hardly enough of a test to go into full production. I will site my source on this also.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-in-netherlands-will-be-first-on-public-roads



RamzFanz said:


> Please support this with any study or expert opinion.


Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? 
You support nothing with any study or expert opinion yet you ask others to?

Drones flying themselves are not anywhere near a plane with passengers flying themselves. Autopilot has to be told what to do by the pilot. They don't just push a button an sit back.

http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/

Everything in Amsterdam is still in the R&D phase yet you are trying to make it sound like SDC's are as common as people with blue eyes and blond hair in Amsterdam. Google it. In 30 seconds you can find all of the references to SDC's in Amsterdam you want and none of them say that they are being used as everyday transportation by the population.
I believe there will be SDC's in the future. But there will also still be cars driven by people in the future. We have a love affair with cars and that isn't going to end anytime soon.


----------



## Jermin8r89

4736353377384555736 said:


> Please let us know specifically where you saw statements that those would never happen, how those statements relate to the posters in this forum, and your concept of the difference between "never happening" and "happening quick enough to save Uber the company."
> 
> Otherwise you're putting up a straw man argument. I don't know of anyone stating SDCs will "never happen"


Its the concept of people arguing debateing on whether things will happen and never happen.
Things that have never happened we thought we would have by now
-SDC
-Flying cars
-widespread VR in everyday lives
-High speed trains,cars and planes
-Smarthouses
-smartroads
-solved homelessness and hunger
-space elavator
-hyper loop
-colonizeing other planets
Ill throw one more we didnt think qould happen
-9\11


----------



## 4736353377384555736

zordac said:


> 6 people on a bus going along a closed course for 200m at 5 mph is hardly enough of a test to go into full production. I will site my source on this also.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-in-netherlands-will-be-first-on-public-roads
> 
> Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
> You support nothing with any study or expert opinion yet you ask others to?
> 
> Drones flying themselves are not anywhere near a plane with passengers flying themselves. Autopilot has to be told what to do by the pilot. They don't just push a button an sit back.
> 
> http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/
> 
> Everything in Amsterdam is still in the R&D phase yet you are trying to make it sound like SDC's are as common as people with blue eyes and blond hair in Amsterdam. Google it. In 30 seconds you can find all of the references to SDC's in Amsterdam you want and none of them say that they are being used as everyday transportation by the population.
> I believe there will be SDC's in the future. But there will also still be cars driven by people in the future. We have a love affair with cars and that isn't going to end anytime soon.


Most rational post I've seen in this thread so far.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Jermin8r89 said:


> Its the concept of people arguing debateing on whether things will happen and never happen.


 That's not my take on it. I have little doubt that SDCs will happen eventually. And I look forward to that day. But based upon what I know of technology and history that day won't be here any time soon. That's my own opinion and nothing more.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

MidnightDriver said:


> You think that's the biggest problem?
> The greatest hurdle is how the AI is going to replace human experience.
> 
> *Behind a rolling ball comes a running child
> *
> We've all seen this phrase on the back of trucks and we all know what it means. We know it because of our experiences, not because it is necessarily logical. We receive all kinds of cues while we are driving and those cues are filtered through our experiences. It's going to take much more than logic programs and motion sensors to understand what that rolling ball means, if it ever does understand.


Great post. We bring all our life experiences with us when we drive. The other day a huge crow swooped down in front of my car to pick something off the road. Didn't faze me because I knew it would fly away as I approached, which it did. Wondered how a computer would have responded.


----------



## Jermin8r89

4736353377384555736 said:


> That's not my take on it. I have little doubt that SDCs will happen eventually. And I look forward to that day. But based upon what I know of technology and history that day won't be here any time soon. That's my own opinion and nothing more.


All this is is opions i dont think anyone in here is in musks inner circle or politicians. We are heading into territory we dont know. When we went to the moon noone thought we would go into fetle position and go into direction of just trying to make human civilization lazy. Will mars 1 take off idk. If not attack after attack will happen cuz everyone thinks they are entitle for something cuz other people are successful. So what ever happens happens will it be good or bad idk but in my opion no. Technoligy is getting cheaper but the baseic needs for human liveing is going up


----------



## Chuck Morris

So, does this mean that sooner or later the little boy with the dream of his automated army of cars will have to deal with the community of drivers who make his money for him or continue to treat drivers as a nuasence as he does now?


----------



## Slim Pete

Undermensch said:


> Here are some other nevers that happened:
> 
> Hybrid cars would never last when they came out in 2001
> Electric cars would never reach production volumes at any price
> Microsoft Office would never overtake WordPerfect
> iPhone would never replace Blackberry
> The entirety of human knowledge would never be available to a computer
> The only never that is true is: it's never worth debating with the "never people". The future will happen whether they are ready for it or not.


None of these things you mentioned would cost you your life if they failed to perform.
There's a big difference right there.


----------



## Undermensch

Slim Pete said:


> None of these things you mentioned would cost you your life if they failed to perform.
> There's a big difference right there.


Ok, so:


Automobiles would never replace horses and carriages
But they did
30k+ people die per year in the US from automobile crashes
The failure to perform correctly is already happening without self-driving cars. It's a pretty low bar to beat human drivers.


----------



## SCdave

Thoughts:

Which small city in the US will get paid to allow SDCs within their city? Like a small city (probably in Michigan) gets funded, all their streets get repaved/repaired, all citizens get free transportation on SDCs, cameras/sensors are setup throughout the city, additional EMTs (ambulances) are provided free of charge (well, just in case), signs are posted at ingress to city limits re SDC Testing Zone (entry is acceptance of blah blah blah, or alternative route to bypass city is available), hmmm?

Or maybe a large Senior Community with 1000s of residents would be a good test location? We could take this in a positive direction or not. But it could make for a good closed community test location. Beur , probably a few in the Palm Springs-Palm Desert area. Or a large resort might be a better example where guests sign waivers but are provided free SDC transportation?

This I could see in 2-3 years or next year. Why? I believe there is enough good technology for SDCs. The problem is where and how to test it out with no Pilot/Driver required as backup. Could a city/state allow this scenario? What is the threshold for social acceptance?

But outside of a closed or controlled environment to have SDCs without a Pilot/Driver in the next 2-3 years in a major city? Can't see this happening. That part will be more of a money (or who gets paid off) and social acceptance issue then a tech issue.


----------



## Slim Pete

Undermensch said:


> Ok, so:
> 
> 
> Automobiles would never replace horses and carriages
> But they did
> 30k+ people die per year in the US from automobile crashes
> The failure to perform correctly is already happening without self-driving cars. It's a pretty low bar to beat human drivers.


We have to keep in mind certain technical limitations. Humans are a pretty low bar to beat, agreed. But you also have to keep in mind that while the most advance supercomputers can do trillions of calculations a second, a feat even the most intelligent person on Earth would stand no chance of outperforming, that same supercomputer cannot tell if an object rolling across the street is tumbleweed or a rock that's fallen down a cliff, something even the lowest IQ person on Earth can tell in an instant.

We have to understand the limitations of technology.


----------



## heynow321

itt ramz suffers from some serious cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Beur

You got to be kidding SCdave, we can't get these damn cities to agree on CVLink - http://www.coachellavalleylink.com/

I can see it now self driving cars dying at every other city boundary line. Sorry folks you have to get out and push for the next 10 miles.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Slim Pete said:


> We have to understand the limitations of technology.


Its whats going on with the samsung galaxy note 7. Too much stuff inside the batteries we have now


----------



## Slim Pete

Jermin8r89 said:


> Its whats going on with the samsung galaxy note 7. Too much stuff inside the batteries we have now


yeah and then they explode and have to be recalled.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Undermensch said:


> Ok, so:
> 
> 
> Automobiles would never replace horses and carriages
> But they did
> 30k+ people die per year in the US from automobile crashes
> The failure to perform correctly is already happening without self-driving cars. It's a pretty low bar to beat human drivers.


Yet another totally specious argument from you. Nobody here is saying SDCs are "never" going to become at least somewhat common. There are certainly some things a SDC Uber won't be doing for many, many years, such as hooking up and towing a trailer full of boats and backing them into a lake.

Secondly, when cars first started to replace horses about a century ago, there certainly weren't "30k+" deaths in the first year. You can be sure, if there had been, cars would have never replaced horses.


----------



## rtaatl

Here's a simple but important question that I'm surprised no one as asked. 

What happens in a heavy downpour?

If where you live is currently raining fairly heavily; pull out your phone camera and look....OK that's what the sensor on these self driving vehicles is seeing. Good luck with that.


----------



## Jermin8r89

www.technologyreview.com/s/534866/why-we-dont-have-battery-breakthroughs.


----------



## Rick Deckard

RamzFanz said:


> Your hover car concept doesn't even have the first real world test or even an engine that's been demonstrated to work. I like the idea though, but it's science fiction at the moment. The eMDrive is months or years away from even having a chance to show proof of concept.


What are you talking about this guy made one in his kitchen.






It's obviously not perfect but it demonstrates thrust, and this guys a hobbyist. Why do you think they are putting one in orbit? PROOF OF CONCEPT that's why. NASA doesn't do anything without that.


----------



## Rick Deckard

Undermensch said:


> Ok, so:
> 
> 
> Automobiles would never replace horses and carriages
> But they did
> 30k+ people die per year in the US from automobile crashes
> The failure to perform correctly is already happening without self-driving cars. It's a pretty low bar to beat human drivers.


Except everyone here except ramzfan is saying that SDCs will probably happen in the distant future. He is saying that it will never take longer than a couple years for this occur and that its already happening. We all think that's BS. don't be foolish


----------



## SCdave

Beur said:


> You got to be kidding SCdave, we can't get these damn cities to agree on CVLink - http://www.coachellavalleylink.com/
> 
> I can see it now self driving cars dying at every other city boundary line. Sorry folks you have to get out and push for the next 10 miles.


Inside a large private senior oriented community/resort. Not outside on public roads?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Henry Ford built his first car in 1896. He built four of them, actually. Two still run, a third still exists and experts have stated that if someone is willing to spend the money, it could be made to run. Fifty per-cent of the original production is still in working order---not bad. Henry formed the Ford Motor company, as we know it to-day, in 1903. 

I have seen photographs of horsies' delivering merchandise in the big US cities that were taken as late as the 1930s. If you look at movies and photographs from the early stages of the Second World War, you will see actual horse cavalry units, from both the major and minor powers involved in that war at the time. While Polish horse cavalrymen with lances may have charged German tanks, you also see German cavalry units.

Yes, the self-driving vehicle is here. It will replace human driven vehicles eventually, but not as quickly as its most ardent proponents would have you believe.


----------



## Beur

SCdave said:


> Inside a large private senior oriented community/resort. Not outside on public roads?


Hmm, maybe PGA


----------



## I have nuts

What happens when this starts happening for real?

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/


----------



## Jermin8r89

This is what actully could happen if everything goes autonimous and is put in government and big corrparations control
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/venezuela-pets-go-hungry-as-economic-crisis-deepens/


----------



## Slavic Riga

*When it comes to debates or arguments, behave like an adult & stop throwing temper tantrums, *
_
To my post # 102, you asked for help in post # 105 & by post # 110 you & your attitude went berserk.._
POST # 102 - *My post*


Slavic Riga said:


> Read the Ministry review & write-up.
> That means you don't have access to the latest article. Sorry conman. Your article is outdated & from January 2016.


POST # 105 - *You ask for help*


RamzFanz said:


> Sure. Glad to help. Do you have a link?


POST # 110 - *Went berserk. Loco loco*


RamzFanz said:


> Yeah, I don't play fetch.
> I also couldn't care less what a bureaucrat says. I gave you examples of why.


*You don't want to play FETCH but you want others to fetch it for you.*

It also confirms to others your unstable state of mind.
You wont & cannot win all arguments. There are people smarter than you *RamzFanz.*


----------



## Slavic Riga

zordac said:


> 6 people on a bus going along a closed course for 200m at 5 mph is hardly enough of a test to go into full production. I will site my source on this also.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-in-netherlands-will-be-first-on-public-roads
> 
> *Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
> You support nothing with any study or expert opinion yet you ask others to?*
> 
> http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/
> 
> Everything in Amsterdam is still in the R&D phase yet you are trying to make it sound like SDC's are as common as people with blue eyes and blond hair in Amsterdam. Google it. In 30 seconds you can find all of the references to SDC's in Amsterdam you want and none of them say that they are being used as everyday transportation by the population.
> I believe there will be SDC's in the future. But there will also still be cars driven by people in the future. We have a love affair with cars and that isn't going to end anytime soon.


*RamzFanz *has no basis, just his temper & tantrums. Cannot admit he is wrong, which he is most of the time.
Read all his replies. Not consistent, very shifty & moves from Topic to Topic.
He is even MAD with the Minister in the Netherlands Ministry of Transportation & even discounts her public statement
&
* All this because we all called on his B/S.*


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

MidnightDriver said:


> You think that's the biggest problem?
> The greatest hurdle is how the AI is going to replace human experience.
> 
> *Behind a rolling ball comes a running child
> *
> We've all seen this phrase on the back of trucks and we all know what it means. We know it because of our experiences, not because it is necessarily logical. We receive all kinds of cues while we are driving and those cues are filtered through our experiences. It's going to take much more than logic programs and motion sensors to understand what that rolling ball means, if it ever does understand.


There are many times I see a car at the exit of a parking lot and KNOW he's not paying attention and may pull out. I don't even know how I know. It's why experience counts in driving.

When I worked in a convenience store I got to know when I was about to be robbed. You can't always say how you lnow, you just do. I don't think machine learning is anywhere near reading the subleties of behavior a human can, especially when we can't even tell ourselves what we've learned.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Jermin8r89 said:


> Its the concept of people arguing debateing on whether things will happen and never happen.
> Things that have never happened we thought we would have by now
> -SDC
> -Flying cars
> -widespread VR in everyday lives
> -High speed trains,cars and planes
> -Smarthouses
> -smartroads
> -solved homelessness and hunger
> -space elavator
> -hyper loop
> -colonizeing other planets
> Ill throw one more we didnt think qould happen
> -9\11


There are plenty of us who have lived in places that experienced terrorism who knew it was just a matter of time.

AMERICANS (not all, most) didn't think 9/11 could happen.


----------



## Oscar Levant

UberNorthDfw said:


> So Much for Uber's self driving dreams:
> 
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...-americas-top-transportation-safety-official/


In all of the SDC threads, the sayers versus the naysayers, me being the latter, I made the same argument. The idea ASSUMES people will want it, and it won't work well unless everyone is in a self-driving car, and I would go further to say that not only everyone in a SDC, the cars talk to the road, the signals, other cars. But, because people like to drive, that day will never come any time soon. Yes, I always hear the "smartphone" comparison, that technology always replaces older technology.

True, but with one big difference, people have to at least want the new thing, and with smartphones, it's pretty obvious they'd want something like that.

And that, with SDCs, is a huge assumption. I don't want it, so I'm not confident many people will, however, I just don't know. Sure, some people will, but it won't take more than a few accidents, and there will be accidents, to spook the whole thing. The SDC depends on nerdy people ( bless their souls  ) sitting in cubicles somewhere writing code, and there will always be something they didn't think of, and that thing they didn't think of will kill you.


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> In all of the SDC threads, the sayers versus the naysayers, me being the latter, I made the same argument. The idea ASSUMES people will want it, and it won't work well unless everyone is in a self-driving car, and I would go further to say that not only everyone in a SDC, the cars talk to the road, the signals, other cars. But, because people like to drive, that day will never come any time soon. Yes, I always hear the "smartphone" comparison, that technology always replaces older technology.
> 
> True, but with one big difference, people have to at least want the new thing, and with smartphones, it's pretty obvious they'd want something like that.
> 
> And that, with SDCs, is a huge assumption. I don't want it, so I'm not confident many people will, however, I just don't know. Sure, some people will, but it won't take more than a few accidents, and there will be accidents, to spook the whole thing. The SDC depends on nerdy people ( bless their souls  ) sitting in cubicles somewhere writing code, and there will always be something they didn't think of, and that thing they didn't think of will kill you.


Well, kind of. Nvidia says they have a system that doesn't need programing. It uses deep computer learning and, they claim, can self teach driving. So even if one is programed, it still learns on it's own and what it learns, all of the cars can learn, almost instantaneously. A car might struggle through a situation, but the next won't, supposedly.

I disagree about the accidents. We know how many accidents cars have now and we don't blink. Less accidents will be appealing, no accidents will be impossible.

From the polls I've read, about 25% say _never_, 25% say _for sure_, and the rest are on the fence. 25% is more than enough customers to start with while convincing the fence sitters. Once the numbers are in, if they are as good as hoped and the _fence sitters_ join the _for sures_, the _nevers_ may not have a choice. It wasn't obvious people wanted smartphones but when they saw others using them and what they could do, they quickly came down off the fence.

To me it boils down to: _Do I put my children into a car with a .005% of killing them or .002%_? (hypothetical numbers)

I know my answer.


----------



## Jermin8r89

SDC are boreing and fundamentally scary for maybe death of freedom. We would say fine dont have to do this or learn it. More and more people are staying safe liveing with parents being in protective bubble. You think when that mass shooting in orlando happened if someone had the guts to learn to protect themself and have a gun they use it on shooter? Just police took awhile to respond to scene and was better to rush and bring your friend to hospital in own car? Hell yea! I look at cars as freedom like a gun or a place to live as ive had to live in my suv for a month befor. If SDC become more accurate id like to see it as more of help for handicap like elvators or stairlift. Your not gonna make everyone push for this if so just look for you modern day prohibition to happen


----------



## Jermin8r89

RamzFanz said:


> Well, kind of. Nvidia says they have a system that doesn't need programing. It uses deep computer learning and, they claim, can self teach driving. So even if one is programed, it still learns on it's own and what it learns, all of the cars can learn, almost instantaneously. A car might struggle through a situation, but the next won't, supposedly.
> 
> I disagree about the accidents. We know how many accidents cars have now and we don't blink. Less accidents will be appealing, no accidents will be impossible.
> 
> From the polls I've read, about 25% say _never_, 25% say _for sure_, and the rest are on the fence. 25% is more than enough customers to start with while convincing the fence sitters. Once the numbers are in, if they are as good as hoped and the _fence sitters_ join the _for sures_, the _nevers_ may not have a choice. It wasn't obvious people wanted smartphones but when they saw others using them and what they could do, they quickly came down off the fence.
> 
> To me it boils down to: _Do I put my children into a car with a .005% of killing them or .002%_? (hypothetical numbers)
> 
> I know my answer.


This is different. When i saw smartphones i was like wow soo much convieance. We didnt say when we were younger wow i want to be a tellaphone man! Lol. What we wanted when we were younger and still today is the ability to have something of your own to have freedom. A smartphone is so easy to get babies have them. Its like when ypu can purchase alchole at legal age. My nephew wants to drive a truck and be a rock climber hes 8 years old. Like hes advetures! All this is is for buisness not really safety or environmentaly safety. How do u think batteries are made or your sensors or phone parts? In africa and south american mines tearring apart land in poor nations. So for those people who wamt SDV they prolly just those anti sociol people who just work and only go to super markets or walmart once a week then they working or at home wishing they had stuff to do.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

There will be an anti SDC lobby.
A mixed queue of SDC and non SDC will be a disaster.
Doesn't matter if it's the humans crashing into the robots or visa versa.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Breaking news: 
An elderley lady has been rushed to hospital after an Uber Robot Car trip home from the supermarket.
Early reports indicate that the shock occured when the Uber robot got out of the car and carried her groceries into the house for her.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

__ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10154537540884700&id=99206759699


Uber are working on a three legged version for you to own - legs wise, they've already taken their 25% up front.


----------



## painfreepc

Wow the same questions in the Articles are the same questions I've asked in another trend,

You don't have to be a computer scientist to see that we are not ready all you need to be as a serious computer user which I am,

I have a good friend who thinks totally Anonymous automobiles are going to happen in a few years, I told him he was crazy, I told him that I honestly don't believe we have the computer technology to make it happen it's only a pipe dream,

He responded, we have the computer technology to do almost anything,

He's a hardcore Star Trek fan as am I so I asked him the following question,

If an alien race gave us a ship like the Starship Enterprise, but stripped out all the computer technology and left all the other components intact could we get to fly,

He just looked at me like a deer caught in the headlights and said we would not live enough to see it fly..

None of this is ever going to fully happen unless we figure out how to make a human brain part of a computer processor, yeah you can all think I'm crazy all you want, I don't care..


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> I disagree about the accidents. We know how many accidents cars have now and we don't blink. Less accidents will be appealing, no accidents will be impossible.
> 
> From the* polls* I've read, about 25% say _never_, 25% say _for sure_, and the rest are on the fence. 25% is more than enough customers to start with while convincing the fence sitters. Once the numbers are in, if they are as good as hoped and the _fence sitters_ join the _for sures_, the _nevers_ may not have a choice.


Starting New topic of debate/argument. *Polls.*
Which one do you want to start with. Pick one. *Independent Polls, Straw Polls, Push Polls, Opinion Polls or Salesforce Polls.*
All polls manipulated to suit the thinking of people who cannot think for themselves.
E.g. The current US Presidential election. 



RamzFanz said:


> *To me it boils down to: Do I put my children into a car with a .005% of killing them or .002%? (hypothetical numbers). I know* *my answer*.


We also know it. But after you, claiming to have vast knowledge. Why do I sense hesitation?
In other words all humanity should be harmed but not yours. You are so pro SDC's, sign them up for the experiment, put them in it. Than we will all believe you.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

Lowestformofwit said:


> Breaking news:
> An elderley lady has been rushed to hospital after an Uber Robot Car trip home from the supermarket.
> Early reports indicate that the shock occured when the Uber robot got out of the car and carried her groceries into the house for her.


Major update: the lady attempted to tip the robot, but her five dollar bill was rejected by the automaton, which repeated the phrase "tip is included!"


----------



## zordac

Mountainsoloist said:


> Major update: the lady attempted to tip the robot, but her five dollar bill was rejected by the automaton, which repeated the phrase "tip is included!"


Silly Robot, Tips are for Uber....


----------



## Jermin8r89

Robot car has a glitch spins around rotary 20 times


----------



## Slavic Riga

SamanthaJ said:


> From my research, it's actually expected in 2030. Current Uber drivers need not worry.


Welcome & Thank you. 
Like those three words *'From my research'*. Another sane person RamzFanz, will have to deal with.


----------



## RamzFanz

Jermin8r89 said:


> SDC are boreing and fundamentally scary for maybe death of freedom. We would say fine dont have to do this or learn it. More and more people are staying safe liveing with parents being in protective bubble. You think when that mass shooting in orlando happened if someone had the guts to learn to protect themself and have a gun they use it on shooter? Just police took awhile to respond to scene and was better to rush and bring your friend to hospital in own car? Hell yea! I look at cars as freedom like a gun or a place to live as ive had to live in my suv for a month befor. If SDC become more accurate id like to see it as more of help for handicap like elvators or stairlift. Your not gonna make everyone push for this if so just look for you modern day prohibition to happen


If a mass shooting occurred and I was injured, or if I was injured in any way where I couldn't drive, I'd be happy to know I could summon a car and not have to be carried to one or wait for an ambulance. Funny you mentioned elevators, they used to have operators and now they don't and no one cares because they are better.

This isn't prohibition. Only paid drivers really want to drive. Those who drive for fun are meaningless.


----------



## RamzFanz

painfreepc said:


> Wow the same questions in the Articles are the same questions I've asked in another trend,
> 
> You don't have to be a computer scientist to see that we are not ready all you need to be as a serious computer user which I am,
> 
> I have a good friend who thinks totally Anonymous automobiles are going to happen in a few years, I told him he was crazy, I told him that I honestly don't believe we have the computer technology to make it happen it's only a pipe dream,
> 
> He responded, we have the computer technology to do almost anything,
> 
> He's a hardcore Star Trek fan as am I so I asked him the following question,
> 
> If an alien race gave us a ship like the Starship Enterprise, but stripped out all the computer technology and left all the other components intact could we get to fly,
> 
> He just looked at me like a deer caught in the headlights and said we would not live enough to see it fly..
> 
> None of this is ever going to fully happen unless we figure out how to make a human brain part of a computer processor, yeah you can all think I'm crazy all you want, I don't care..


Dude, please share with me what you are smoking.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> Starting New topic of debate/argument. *Polls.*
> Which one do you want to start with. Pick one. *Independent Polls, Straw Polls, Push Polls, Opinion Polls or Salesforce Polls.*
> All polls manipulated to suit the thinking of people who cannot think for themselves.
> E.g. The current US Presidential election.
> 
> We also know it. But after you, claiming to have vast knowledge. Why do I sense hesitation?
> In other words all humanity should be harmed but not yours. You are so pro SDC's, sign them up for the experiment, put them in it. Than we will all believe you.


First, your font and emphasis are so distracting I can barely understand what you are saying.

I don't have vast knowledge, I have the same knowledge you could have if you knew anything about this subject.

You sense hesitation? You sense hesitation? You need to get your sensors checked.


----------



## RamzFanz

SamanthaJ said:


> From my research, it's actually expected in 2030. Current Uber drivers need not worry.


So your "research" is reading uberpeople.net forums?


----------



## SamanthaJ

RamzFanz said:


> So your "research" is reading uberpeople.net forums?


LOL! Just out of curiosity what makes you think my research is based on reading uberpeople forums?


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> I don't have vast knowledge


Yeah, no kidding lol


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> First, your font and emphasis are so distracting I can barely understand what you are saying..


Whew! Thanks for getting it out of the way. With a conman & unstable person *like you* emphasis is mandatory. Your lack of understanding is noticeable when temper tantrums come to play.


RamzFanz said:


> I don't have vast knowledge, I have the same knowledge you could have if you knew anything about this subject.


Don't make assumptions. I have vast knowledge on Polls & challenged you to a debate by requesting you to pick a topic. I am surprised that a bull$hitter who used to comment on every post & very shifty has admitted that he has No Knowledge.


RamzFanz said:


> You sense hesitation? You sense hesitation? You need to get your sensors checked.


You have started stammering. Will get you help & into therapy asap.
*I used to be a psychic but I drank my way out of it. *_Mark E. Smith._


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> If a mass shooting occurred and I was injured, or if I was injured in any way where I couldn't drive, I'd be happy to know I could summon a car and not have to be carried to one or wait for an ambulance. are meaningless.


You will be D E A D. What makes you think you would be injured & alive. *Cowardice* maybe.
After summoning, the car would have arrived & departed after five minutes because you could not get in or open the door of the car. Cancellation fee too. But, in all probability you would be DEAD. Do you have some study or paperwork that you would be injured. Stop making assumptions.


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> So your "research" is reading uberpeople.net forums?


In other words 'You reassuring all of us, as to from where you have been getting your material'. Good.


----------



## SamanthaJ

RamzFanz said:


> So your "research" is reading uberpeople.net forums?


Before I sign off, I do understand your passion for what


Slavic Riga said:


> You will be D E A D. What makes you think you would be injured & alive. *Cowardice* maybe.
> After summoning the car would have arrived & departed after five minutes because you could not get in or open the door of the car. Cancellation fee too. But, in all probability you would be DEAD. Do you have some study or paperwork that you would be injured. Stop making assumptions.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

No, there'd be SD ambulances and hearses. But a sensor problem would put you in the wrong one...







RamzFanz said:


> If a mass shooting occurred and I was injured, or if I was injured in any way where I couldn't drive, I'd be happy to know I could summon a car and not have to be carried to one or wait for an ambulance.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Good to see the masses turning the tide on RamzFanz.
RamzFanz, a cult of one.


----------



## Slavic Riga

Fuzzyelvis said:


> No, there'd be SD ambulances and hearses. But a sensor problem would put you in the wrong one...


Or better still, programmed to kill. "Damaged Goods". No need to resuscitate or save life. Anyway, nobody would know, except you, your mobile phone & the app that you requested the SDC from.


----------



## TangoDriver

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2016/09/06/ubers-autonomous-vehicles-san-francisco.html

Robo Cars are in Singapore and they're also here now in your local neighborhood. There is no stopping it despite what scientist says. Go figure!


----------



## Slavic Riga

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Good to see the masses turning the tide on RamzFanz.
> RamzFanz, a cult of one.


We don't want to do it. Never allows any thread, topic or conversation to take its normal course. Always comes with self-righteous answers, like he has so much *(incomplete) *knowledge. He is right & all are wrong & gives you the impression he is involved with SDC's & can predict the future.

He is ignorant & it shows in one of his posts. Will make references to it very soon. Be patient. 'Lets expose the Fool for what he/she is'.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

TangoDriver said:


> http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2016/09/06/ubers-autonomous-vehicles-san-francisco.html
> 
> Robo Cars are in Singapore and they're also here now in your local neighborhood. There is no stopping it despite what scientist says. Go figure!


O look, a new member.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Slavic Riga said:


> We don't want to do it. Never allows any thread, topic or conversation to take its normal course. Always comes with self-righteous answers, like he has so much *(incomplete) *knowledge. He is right & all are wrong & gives you the impression he is involved with SDC's & can predict the future.
> 
> He is ignorant & it shows in one of his posts. Will make references to it very soon. Be patient. 'Lets expose the Fool for what he/she is'.


This is why I haven't visited his new thread.
No point.


----------



## Slavic Riga

TangoDriver said:


> http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2016/09/06/ubers-autonomous-vehicles-san-francisco.html Robo Cars are in Singapore and they're also here now in your local neighborhood. There is no stopping it despite what scientist says. Go figure!


No one is stopping Robo cars or SDC's. 
Its not going to be mainstream tomorrow or in another three years. SDcars will not be without driver behind the wheel. Aircrafts still have pilots behind the controls.


----------



## Jermin8r89

RamzFanz said:


> If a mass shooting occurred and I was injured, or if I was injured in any way where I couldn't drive, I'd be happy to know I could summon a car and not have to be carried to one or wait for an ambulance. Funny you mentioned elevators, they used to have operators and now they don't and no one cares because they are better.
> 
> This isn't prohibition. Only paid drivers really want to drive. Those who drive for fun are meaningless.


Well you wont have to worry about guns as they would be baned, also chrismas tree is a holiday tree so pretty soon thanksgiveing turkey will be offenseive and will be called a holiday bird.


----------



## painfreepc

RamzFanz said:


> Dude, please share with me what you are smoking.


Maybe I'm smoking the same thing you're smoking..

So do you think our present-day computer technology is capable of doing anything,

We walk around with these high-end devices in our hand like the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge for example, we think because it puts beautiful graphics on a screen and can do thousands of calculations per second we think that's all needed of computer technology for us to do any damn thing we can dream of,

Modern-day computers can only do what they are programmed to do they cannot make decisions like a human being,

earlier today I was parked and I observe a squirrel cross the street several times,
I observe how its tail did not move did not waver did not wander, as it's body bounce up and down as he ran across the street,

I as a human being even from 100 yards away easily recognize that this was a squirrel, not a dog, not a cat, not a possum or a raccoon and certainly not a baby crawling across the street,

A human being traveling on the freeway at 70 miles an hour has enough sense not to slam on the brakes to avoid a squirrel or a cat, but that same human being will probably wreck his car to avoid a child,

Please do explain to me how these computerized cars are going to deal with these situations,

I predict that with many of these cars hit the road in numbers many of them will be recalled, just like the Galaxy S7 Edge..

And the day when these cars to become reliable and hit the road in Mass numbers where's all the present day drivers who drive for a living going to work and no I'm not talking about uber and Lyft drivers, millions of people in this country drive for a living,

But then again I don't see airline pilots and Railroad train operators out of work yet..


----------



## Slavic Riga

painfreepc said:


> Maybe I'm smoking the same thing you're smoking.


Thanks for not mentioning what you smoking. LOL.
RamzFranz would have than thrown a tantrum. As, your stuff would have been better & stronger than his.


----------



## Oscar Levant

RamzFanz said:


> Well, kind of. Nvidia says they have a system that doesn't need programing. It uses deep computer learning and, they claim, can self teach driving. So even if one is programed, it still learns on it's own and what it learns, all of the cars can learn, almost instantaneously. A car might struggle through a situation, but the next won't, supposedly.
> 
> I disagree about the accidents. We know how many accidents cars have now and we don't blink. Less accidents will be appealing, no accidents will be impossible.
> 
> From the polls I've read, about 25% say _never_, 25% say _for sure_, and the rest are on the fence. 25% is more than enough customers to start with while convincing the fence sitters. Once the numbers are in, if they are as good as hoped and the _fence sitters_ join the _for sures_, the _nevers_ may not have a choice. It wasn't obvious people wanted smartphones but when they saw others using them and what they could do, they quickly came down off the fence.
> 
> To me it boils down to: _Do I put my children into a car with a .005% of killing them or .002%_? (hypothetical numbers)
> 
> I know my answer.


Travis is making two assumptions the first is that people will climb into these things , and the second is that having a fleet of cars , to the tune of hundreds of thousands and warehousing and technicians and payroll etcetera etcetera, which will have to be owned by uber or subbed out, will be cheaper.

I have my doubts on both counts

As for the safety Factor it's Realty vs perception, and perception always rules.

Using high-tech Innovations such as phones etcetera as a comparison is a false comparison simply because people want phones, will they want to climb into driverless cars? A fee will but then again quite a few will probably not. What advantage does a rider have in a driverless car that it does not have in the driven car? There is no advantage.

But there are disadvantages. for example when you get a haircut do you want to robot giving you a haircut? when you go get a drink at the bar do you want a robot serving you a drink? sometimes you just want a human there. Also I say 25% to 50% of all pings have an ambiguous address or a completely wrong address --so how are they going to have driverless cars when they can't even get the address right? In my city if you put airport as a destination you'll be taken to the other side of the airport where the rentals are.
Also how does a robot do with a complicated aspects of picking up at airports? At small airports it might be easy but a large airports that's where it gets tricky. Large Hospital complexes or a college campuses also pose a problem because every time I arrive at these destinations I always have to talk to the rider to find out exactly where they are.
There isn't a day that passes when I'm ubering that I won't find it necessary to communicate directly to the driver-- an option which will not be available with the driverless car


----------



## Oscar Levant

Slavic Riga said:


> Starting New topic of debate/argument. *Polls.*
> Which one do you want to start with. Pick one. *Independent Polls, Straw Polls, Push Polls, Opinion Polls or Salesforce Polls.*
> All polls manipulated to suit the thinking of people who cannot think for themselves.
> E.g. The current US Presidential election.
> 
> We also know it. But after you, claiming to have vast knowledge. Why do I sense hesitation?
> In other words all humanity should be harmed but not yours. You are so pro SDC's, sign them up for the experiment, put them in it. Than we will all believe you.


It's reality versus perceptions and emotions and the latter always wins

Somebody is going to die in a driverless car by one glitch or another and that will be the end of it. It won't be comparable to trains or planes because in trains and planes everything is automated all pathways are computer-controlled --this is not true for DCs as they will always be competing in the randomity of driven cars.


----------



## Geo305

uberdriverfornow said:


> A bunch of people in the tech field are going to cry their poor eyes out now.
> 
> What this guy is sayin is pure common sense but most people in the tech field want to live their utopian dream and it means believing self driving cars will ever happen.


Yes maybe it is common sense now but humans are relentless and if we want something more than likely it's going to happen with its dangers.


----------



## Oscar Levant

4736353377384555736 said:


> There will be no pilots silly.
> 
> Another great thing about autonomous spaceships is it would completely solve the parking problem. Say you're sitting at home stoned out of your mind. You want a bean and cheese burrito with extra sour cream. So you use the Uber Eats app. A driverless spaceship comes down from the heavens, flies by Del Taco, picks up a burrito, drops it off at your place, and then parks itself in orbit! So easy!
> 
> Surely no more than 5 years away.


When I saw the movie 2001 in 1969 we actually believed that the reality explored in 2001 of space travel akin to a flight on TWA to be forthcoming roundabout 2001 but humans tend to predict the future coming a lot sooner than it will actually happen.


----------



## Oscar Levant

4736353377384555736 said:


> Gives me a great idea: Why isn't Uber pursuing autonomous flying cars? I'm sure that's right around the corner. And next year I'm sure we'll be taking autonomous spaceships to the moon and back for $6 each way. We're no more than 2-3 years away from hiring an autonomous ride to Mars I'm sure.
> 
> Here's a few billion dollars Uber, I'm sure you'll make it happen.


If you go over to Moller flying car the website, you will find out that the technology does exist right now but no big company will pick it up -- that what that's what it will take. The cars don't require a pilot so no pilot's license is needed.


----------



## Jermin8r89

It wont happen as america is broke and the media lies to us too much. Has anyone thought that america would loose WAY to much with self driveing vehicals. Watch out the market is gonna crash very soon as fast as hilarys health.


----------



## Lou W

RamzFanz said:


> You're driving along a coastal highway when you spot a man drowning in the ocean. If you stop to rescue him, your passenger, a doctor delivering a vial of cancer-fighting serum to a nearby hospital, will be delayed in treating a dying patient who has dedicated his life to helping the poor. To make matters worse, the man in the ocean is shouting, "I know a way to bring lasting peace to the Middle East, and I'm the only one with this information!"


That's an easy one.
1) Stop the car, get out, and tell the doc to drive himself to the hospital.
2) Save the drowning peace maker.
3) Accept Nobel prize.


----------



## Allegro Acura

Jermin8r89 said:


> It wont happen as america is broke and the media lies to us too much. Has anyone thought that america would loose WAY to much with self driveing vehicals. Watch out the market is gonna crash very soon as fast as hilarys health.


----------



## Gung-Ho

Has anybody considered the same auto makers that have produced cars that needed recalls or were just dangerous designs...Toyota [ accelarator issues]The Corvair [ unsafe at any speed] Ford Pintos [ explode much in rear end impacts]. And the list is ENDLESS. Will be the same manufactures that would have to build these SDC cars to be 100% Flawless in design and mechanical reliability? Apparently the dreamers must have faith in the auto industry to be above board and honest...VW rigging emissions much..._*HELLO!!!???*_


----------



## knowledgethrow

Allegro Acura said:


>


Yeah I didn't want to sleep tonight anyway  . LOL What is that thing? It's so creepy.


----------



## painfreepc

knowledgethrow said:


> Yeah I didn't want to sleep tonight anyway  . LOL What is that thing? It's so creepy.


*Anyone in need of an International Rescue,*
My God it makes me feel so old, It's the Thunderbirds..





* Thunderbirds Are Go..*


----------



## Ubermon

We keep saying it won't happen and yet today Uber launched its self driving vehicle in Pittsburgh.

At some point people will need to get their heads out of the sand and actively lobby against these things before they become fully autonomous and federally sanctioned.


----------



## knowledgethrow

painfreepc said:


> *Anyone in need of an International Rescue,*
> My God it makes me feel so old, It's the Thunderbirds..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Thunderbirds Are Go..*


thanks!


----------



## knowledgethrow

Ubermon said:


> We keep saying it won't happen and yet today Uber launched its self driving vehicle in Pittsburgh.
> 
> At some point people will need to get their heads out of the sand and actively lobby against these things before they become fully autonomous and federally sanctioned.


It would be an interesting battle to say the least. It all comes down to interests and who pours more money into something (sadly, decisions aren't taken based on what's right or what's beneficial for society). Uber managed to pour enough money and resources into winning the legal battle vs taxicabs and in some cases it even got some laws changed.

But with self driving cars the "foe" is much more powerful than taxi unions. What will happen when traffic ticket revenue, vehicle and driver licensing revenue, parking tickets revenue, etc etc disappears if self driving cars were to take over? We're talking Department of Transportation, Department of Motor Vehicles, police dept and state/county revenue here.... it'd be a clash of titans.


----------



## Lou W

knowledgethrow said:


> What will happen when traffic ticket revenue, vehicle and driver licensing revenue, parking tickets revenue, etc etc disappears if self driving cars were to take over? We're talking Department of Transportation, Department of Motor Vehicles, police dept and state/county revenue here


It won't happen in my lifetime. But if the self driving car means fewer injuries and deaths, cops able to chase violent criminals instead of traffic rule violators, the end of a revenue collection and licencing system that exists only to perpetuate itself, I say good bye and good ridence to all that.


----------



## Gung-Ho

knowledgethrow said:


> It would be an interesting battle to say the least. It all comes down to interests and who pours more money into something (sadly, decisions aren't taken based on what's right or what's beneficial for society). Uber managed to pour enough money and resources into winning the legal battle vs taxicabs and in some cases it even got some laws changed.
> 
> But with self driving cars the "foe" is much more powerful than taxi unions. What will happen when traffic ticket revenue, vehicle and driver licensing revenue, parking tickets revenue, etc etc disappears if self driving cars were to take over? We're talking Department of Transportation, Department of Motor Vehicles, police dept and state/county revenue here.... it'd be a clash of titans.


Assuming the only way these cars would be operational is in total autonomous mode. However human override will be essential for these to be even marginally accepted by the public. Can you imagine going on a 6oo mile drive and have the car obey every speed limit to the dot. As for ticket revenues diminishing...say hello to toll roads everywhere. These cars will be able to be monitored everywhere they go so tolling will be easy.


----------



## knowledgethrow

Lou W said:


> It won't happen in my lifetime. But if the self driving car means fewer injuries and deaths, cops able to chase violent criminals instead of traffic rule violators, the end of a revenue collection and licencing system that exists only to perpetuate itself, I say good bye and good ridence to all that.


I see your point, and it is a good one.
But my point is that these organizations and bodies will obviously fight for their continued existence in the way taxicab unions fought not so long ago (regardless of whether it is a good thing or not).


----------



## knowledgethrow

Gung-Ho said:


> Assuming the only way these cars would be operational is in total autonomous mode. However human override will be essential for these to be even marginally accepted by the public. Can you imagine going on a 6oo mile drive and have the car obey every speed limit to the dot. As for ticket revenues diminishing...*say hello to toll roads everywhere*. These cars will be able to be monitored everywhere they go so tolling will be easy.


That's a bit of a worrysome thought. Imagine having to pay a $1 toll to go to work and a $1 toll to go back. That's an extra $40 per month in the best of cases, just for going to work. Add everyday transportation needs and you're looking at $120 a month on top of your actual transportation cost!


----------



## wpguy1967

Some points already made worth discussing if full autonomous cars ever make up most cars on the road:

1) Local municipalities count on traffic infraction revenue to fund a good portion of their police department. Without that revenue, they'll go under or taxes go up.

2) A lot of businesses count on people stopping by on the way to work, way home or just when people are out cruising. But when the car's on autopilot, people will pull out their smartphones and just wait to arrive at their destination. Hundreds of thousands of nationwide businesses will be negatively affected.

3) Car insurance rates...if you still choose the drive, will go through the ceiling once auto insurers have firm data that self-driving cars get into less accidents. It'll be like this; "Self-driving car = $60 a month." - "Person driving = $400 a month."


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Ubermon said:


> At some point people will need to get their heads out of the sand and actively lobby against these things before they become fully autonomous and federally sanctioned.


That seems a bit excessive. I'm greatly looking forward to them, when they get to the point that they don't do this....










Unfortunately this won't be any time soon.


----------



## knowledgethrow

wpguy1967 said:


> Some points already made worth discussing if full autonomous cars ever make up most cars on the road:
> 
> 1) Local municipalities count on traffic infraction revenue to fund a good portion of their police department. Without that revenue, they'll go under or taxes go up.
> 
> 2) A lot of businesses count on people stopping by on the way to work, way home or just when people are out cruising. But when the car's on autopilot, people will pull out their smartphones and just wait to arrive at their destination. Hundreds of thousands of nationwide businesses will be negatively affected.
> 
> 3) Car insurance rates...if you still choose the drive, will go through the ceiling once auto insurers have firm data that self-driving cars get into less accidents. It'll be like this; "Self-driving car = $60 a month." - "Person driving = $400 a month."


Yeah, somebody needs to coordinate the implementation of this sort of things from the standpoint of the negative effects it would have on the economy and society.

If this will end destroying _millions_ of jobs directly (e.g. truck drivers, cab drivers, livery drivers, etc) indirectly (gas stations, road side hotels, truck stop restaurants, etc) and even incidentally (people no longer stopping by in certain businesses or even knowing they exist) while at the same time resulting in new expenses (e.g. more toll roads), higher taxes and higher insurance premiums for certain people, it would be a very, very bad thing, no matter how "cool" it is.

I mean, the idea is not to ban self driving cars, but to implement them in a planned, strategic and slower (yes, sorry, slower) way so their negative effects on society can be mitigated.


----------



## I have nuts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/another-person-reportedly-died-due-164546140.html


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

knowledgethrow said:


> Yeah, somebody needs to coordinate the implementation of this sort of things from the standpoint of the negative effects it would have on the economy and society.
> 
> If this will end destroying _millions_ of jobs directly (e.g. truck drivers, cab drivers, livery drivers, etc) indirectly (gas stations, road side hotels, truck stop restaurants, etc) and even incidentally (people no longer stopping by in certain businesses or even knowing they exist) while at the same time resulting in new expenses (e.g. more toll roads), higher taxes and higher insurance premiums for certain people, it would be a very, very bad thing, no matter how "cool" it is.
> 
> I mean, the idea is not to ban self driving cars, but to implement them in a planned, strategic and slower (yes, sorry, slower) way so their negative effects on society can be mitigated.


I estimate we have 10 million pro drivers globally.
It's an enormous sector of the working class.
SDCs would start a depression world wide if implemented in even the next decade.


----------



## knowledgethrow

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I estimate we have 10 million pro drivers globally.
> It's an enormous sector of the working class.
> SDCs would start a depression world wide if implemented in even the next decade.


Yeah, now let's imagine every pro driver job supports 3 other jobs (I have actually read it's more like 7 jobs in the case of truck drivers, because they use gas stations, hotels, truck stop restaurants, etc, all the stuff I said before, but maybe cab and livery drivers don't support anything other than gas stations and fast food stops, so let's average it at 3 jobs). That's 30 million jobs gone!


----------



## rembrandt

Answer a simple question. Which manufacturer has such a production vehicle that can drive itself totally unmanned in a heavily populated area ? Can you buy such a vehicle right now ? I don't want know about prototypes or Tesla scams either.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

rembrandt said:


> Answer a simple question. Which manufacturer has such a production vehicle that can drive itself totally unmanned in a heavily populated area ? Can you buy such a vehicle right now ? I don't want know about prototypes or Tesla scams either.


None.
But 19 companies are trying.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

knowledgethrow said:


> Yeah, somebody needs to coordinate the implementation of this sort of things from the standpoint of the negative effects it would have on the economy and society.
> 
> If this will end destroying _millions_ of jobs directly (e.g. truck drivers, cab drivers, livery drivers, etc) indirectly (gas stations, road side hotels, truck stop restaurants, etc) and even incidentally (people no longer stopping by in certain businesses or even knowing they exist) while at the same time resulting in new expenses (e.g. more toll roads), higher taxes and higher insurance premiums for certain people, it would be a very, very bad thing, no matter how "cool" it is.
> 
> I mean, the idea is not to ban self driving cars, but to implement them in a planned, strategic and slower (yes, sorry, slower) way so their negative effects on society can be mitigated.





TwoFiddyMile said:


> I estimate we have 10 million pro drivers globally.
> It's an enormous sector of the working class.
> SDCs would start a depression world wide if implemented in even the next decade.


I have to admit I don't give two hoots about drivers' jobs. I'd be thrilled to never have the "option" of driving for Uber or Lyft ever again. I'd just get a real job. I only do this gig because having co-workers annoys me. But that's not a big deal. I'd be more than happy to do another job if this one ended. I have no love for driving.

However, I _would _love to see self-driving cars that work well and have a lower chance of killing you than you do. Not Uber-style carpool crap, but my own self-driving car. With no steering wheel, no brakes, accelerator, or anything. No input needed from me. Most people I know would like this as well. I'd love to take a nice nap or read my email while my car took me where I wanted to go.

But it ain't gonna happen, at least not soon. My own personal fantasies don't change the fact that SDCs are nowhere near being ready for prime time.


----------



## Gung-Ho

For a little perspective. The closet innovative product to drastically change the everyday lives of people was the mobile phone. The first commercially available hand held mobile phone was the Motorola Dyna TAC 8000x introduced in 1984. Apple first sold the iPhone 23 years later in 2007.

These phones are tinker toys compared to driverless vehicles. 

23 years for a mobile phone evolution. These prototype cars are like the Motorola 8000x. What they need to be to become a reality is an iPhone.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

knowledgethrow said:


> That's a bit of a worrysome thought. Imagine having to pay a $1 toll to go to work and a $1 toll to go back. That's an extra $40 per month in the best of cases, just for going to work. Add everyday transportation needs and you're looking at $120 a month on top of your actual transportation cost!


The most widely supported road use tax by experts and scholars is a true mileage tax, which is becoming increasingly possible with modern tracking systems. This method is also the least popular among the public for obvious privacy reasons, but there is a good chance that more of our infrastructure will operate like a toll road in the future.



wpguy1967 said:


> 3) Car insurance rates...if you still choose the drive, will go through the ceiling once auto insurers have firm data that self-driving cars get into less accidents. It'll be like this; "Self-driving car = $60 a month." - "Person driving = $400 a month."


Well said, I think that is exactly how it will work after self driving cars are fully adopted. I think that point is a long way off though. I wouldn't even be surprised if SDC insurance costs much more early on.



knowledgethrow said:


> If this will end destroying _millions_ of jobs directly (e.g. truck drivers, cab drivers, livery drivers, etc) indirectly (gas stations, road side hotels, truck stop restaurants, etc) and even incidentally (people no longer stopping by in certain businesses or even knowing they exist) while at the same time resulting in new expenses (e.g. more toll roads), higher taxes and higher insurance premiums for certain people, it would be a very, very bad thing, no matter how "cool" it is.





TwoFiddyMile said:


> I estimate we have 10 million pro drivers globally.
> It's an enormous sector of the working class.
> SDCs would start a depression world wide if implemented in even the next decade.


I agree with these forecasts. I estimate 10 to 100 million jobs will be eliminated by the automation of driving alone. I don't believe these jobs will be eliminated overnight, but the countdown has already started. Driverless cars are here and getting better every day. Unfortunately, I think mass unemployment is a possibility as a result of their deployment. The eventual state of this industry is up in the air as capitalism, innovation, legislation, and public reaction come together.

Personally, I believe that SDC is definitely coming to the market soon. I think the initial impact on livery drivers will be negligible. Considering that Uber driving is no longer a financially lucrative option for most of us, I truly hope we all find better opportunities before the competitors (Uber, Google, Tesla, Lyft, etc.) release their self driving fleets in America.


----------



## knowledgethrow

4736353377384555736 said:


> I have to admit I don't give two hoots about drivers' jobs.I'd just get a real job. I only do this gig because having co-workers annoys me .


That's not how the economy works. If there's nobody buying things because they are worried about their "unreal" or real jobs, everybody suffers. The Ford or Pepsi CEO? They'd suffer if nobody is buying Fords or Pepsis, and well even janitors buy Pepsis.


----------



## knowledgethrow

Gung-Ho said:


> For a little perspective. The closet innovative product to drastically change the everyday lives of people was the mobile phone. The first commercially available hand held mobile phone was the Motorola Dyna TAC 8000x introduced in 1984. Apple first sold the iPhone 23 years later in 2007.
> 
> These phones are tinker toys compared to driverless vehicles.
> 
> 23 years for a mobile phone evolution. These prototype cars are like the Motorola 8000x. What they need to be to become a reality is an iPhone.


I hadn't seen it from that perspective, great point


----------



## SoThisIsRetirement

rembrandt said:


> Answer a simple question. Which manufacturer has such a production vehicle that can drive itself totally unmanned in a heavily populated area ? Can you buy such a vehicle right now ? I don't want know about prototypes or Tesla scams either.


Open the link below and READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. Perhaps many naysayers here will gather some updated perspective.

http://delphi.com/media/feature-stories/Details/vehicle-automation-is-here


----------



## rembrandt

SoThisIsRetirement said:


> Open the link below and READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. Perhaps many naysayers here will gather some updated perspective.
> 
> http://delphi.com/media/feature-stories/Details/vehicle-automation-is-here


Well , the issue is not about the automation which is a workload management system. We understand the differences between workload management which requires a driver and a fully autonomous unmanned vehicle. The issue is about unmanned fully autonomous vehicle. There is no such production vehicle available now which also must be approved by the Federal government to be used on public roads. It is not about an unknown and uncertain future date ; it is about right now.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

SoThisIsRetirement said:


> Open the link below and READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. Perhaps many naysayers here will gather some updated perspective.
> 
> http://delphi.com/media/feature-stories/Details/vehicle-automation-is-here


Not much info in that article. Please explain what you thought it would convey that we don't already know.

My great grandfather's Model T had cruise control that was activated by a lever. That was "automation" too.


----------



## RamzFanz

SamanthaJ said:


> LOL! Just out of curiosity what makes you think my research is based on reading uberpeople forums?


Because this site is about the only place you will hear ridiculous predictions like 2030.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> Whew! Thanks for getting it out of the way. With a conman & unstable person *like you* emphasis is mandatory. Your lack of understanding is noticeable when temper tantrums come to play.
> 
> Don't make assumptions. I have vast knowledge on Polls & challenged you to a debate by requesting you to pick a topic. I am surprised that a bull$hitter who used to comment on every post & very shifty has admitted that he has No Knowledge.
> 
> You have started stammering. Will get you help & into therapy asap.
> *I used to be a psychic but I drank my way out of it. *_Mark E. Smith._


Ad hominem attacks, the last refuge of the defeated.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> You will be D E A D. What makes you think you would be injured & alive. *Cowardice* maybe.
> After summoning, the car would have arrived & departed after five minutes because you could not get in or open the door of the car. Cancellation fee too. But, in all probability you would be DEAD. Do you have some study or paperwork that you would be injured. Stop making assumptions.


I don't even know what to make of your ramblings. Lots of people have been injured and remained mobile in shootings.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

RamzFanz said:


> I don't even know what to make of your ramblings. Lots of people have been injured and remained mobile in shootings.


You go on holiday or something?


----------



## RamzFanz

painfreepc said:


> Maybe I'm smoking the same thing you're smoking..
> 
> So do you think our present-day computer technology is capable of doing anything,
> 
> We walk around with these high-end devices in our hand like the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge for example, we think because it puts beautiful graphics on a screen and can do thousands of calculations per second we think that's all needed of computer technology for us to do any damn thing we can dream of,
> 
> Modern-day computers can only do what they are programmed to do they cannot make decisions like a human being,
> 
> earlier today I was parked and I observe a squirrel cross the street several times,
> I observe how its tail did not move did not waver did not wander, as it's body bounce up and down as he ran across the street,
> 
> I as a human being even from 100 yards away easily recognize that this was a squirrel, not a dog, not a cat, not a possum or a raccoon and certainly not a baby crawling across the street,
> 
> A human being traveling on the freeway at 70 miles an hour has enough sense not to slam on the brakes to avoid a squirrel or a cat, but that same human being will probably wreck his car to avoid a child,
> 
> Please do explain to me how these computerized cars are going to deal with these situations,
> 
> I predict that with many of these cars hit the road in numbers many of them will be recalled, just like the Galaxy S7 Edge..
> 
> And the day when these cars to become reliable and hit the road in Mass numbers where's all the present day drivers who drive for a living going to work and no I'm not talking about uber and Lyft drivers, millions of people in this country drive for a living,
> 
> But then again I don't see airline pilots and Railroad train operators out of work yet..


The current computers being used in SDCs have the processing power of 160+ MacBooks. Trillions of observations and decisions a second. They aren't phones.

And yes, decisions. Nvidia has a system that they claim can (has already?) teach itself to drive. Deep learning/self-learning exists today and is being used in SDCs. Yes, an SDC will be able to sense the difference between a squirrel, dog, and baby better than a human, far far faster, and can anticipate and react, _in unison_, before a human has any idea it's there. It's just a matter of experience. Don't forget that when one car learns something, all of the cars in its fleet will also learn it. It doesn't need to be programmed.

The differences people ignore is that the SDC could be watching and preparing for the squirrel, dog, or baby to enter the road long long before a human can even be aware it's there. For example, in CA a bike was crossing against the red in a busy intersection. The SDC detected it, anticipated it was going to keep going and stopped. Human cars closer to the bike had no idea and almost ran the bike down.

One Google car came across a woman in an electric wheelchair chasing a duck with a broom. It didn't need to know what it was, it knew it didn't know and acted appropriately.

Do you think these robotic engineers didn't consider your scenarios a decade ago? They are not unsolvable, for any that aren't solved, it's just a matter of time and experience.

Train Engineers and Pilots? It's not cost efficient like it is with cars. Eventually, we will demand it.

Yes, millions will have to change careers within a decade. Just like elevator operators and telephone operators. Things change. We don't need to fear change that has the potential of saving 1.2M lives a year. We just need to accept it is on the horizon and prepare approprietly.


----------



## RamzFanz

Ubermon said:


> We keep saying it won't happen and yet today Uber launched its self driving vehicle in Pittsburgh.
> 
> At some point people will need to get their heads out of the sand and actively lobby against these things before they become fully autonomous and federally sanctioned.


Why would we do that? Blood money?


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> Travis is making two assumptions the first is that people will climb into these things , and the second is that having a fleet of cars , to the tune of hundreds of thousands and warehousing and technicians and payroll etcetera etcetera, which will have to be owned by uber or subbed out, will be cheaper.


Travis already pays for a fleet. He just pays you to take care of it. The efficiencies of an all electric SDC fleet being (rarely) serviced in a depot are self-evident.



Oscar Levant said:


> As for the safety Factor it's Realty vs perception, and perception always rules.


Yep. This is where Musk is harming everyone. He should know the headlines will scream self-driving car kills driver when that's not what happened.



Oscar Levant said:


> Using high-tech Innovations such as phones etcetera as a comparison is a false comparison simply because people want phones, will they want to climb into driverless cars? A fee will but then again quite a few will probably not. What advantage does a rider have in a driverless car that it does not have in the driven car? There is no advantage.


What advantage? Life and limb. Do you put your child on a human-driven bus with a .005% chance of injury/death or an SDC with a .00005% chance? Yourself? Your spouse? Your elderly parents?



Oscar Levant said:


> But there are disadvantages. for example when you get a haircut do you want to robot giving you a haircut? when you go get a drink at the bar do you want a robot serving you a drink? sometimes you just want a human there.


In both of those scenarios, I agree, and the hotter they are the better. 1.2M people a year don't die from haircuts.



Oscar Levant said:


> Also I say 25% to 50% of all pings have an ambiguous address or a completely wrong address --so how are they going to have driverless cars when they can't even get the address right?


Obviously an issue when dealing with humans. One they will solve. I would say mine are more like 20%, but I do a lot of residential. Drunks will be drunks. I can imagine bars calling the cars for them to a designated spot. When parking is no longer a priority, each business could have a designated safe pickup spot. I could also see rides being so cheap, they build a free ride home into the drink and cover prices.



Oscar Levant said:


> In my city if you put airport as a destination you'll be taken to the other side of the airport where the rentals are.


Again, an issue, easily solved by having different airport destinations to choose from.



Oscar Levant said:


> Also how does a robot do with a complicated aspects of picking up at airports? At small airports it might be easy but a large airports that's where it gets tricky. Large Hospital complexes or a college campuses also pose a problem because every time I arrive at these destinations I always have to talk to the rider to find out exactly where they are.


Designated pick-up spots for the most part and pax responsibility for the rest.



Oscar Levant said:


> There isn't a day that passes when I'm ubering that I won't find it necessary to communicate directly to the driver-- an option which will not be available with the driverless car


This is assumed. If it really is an issue, humans could interact with both the car and pax, although that's not optimal. People will have to be more responsible for the pin drop.


----------



## Gung-Ho

RamzFanz said:


> Because this site is about the only place you will hear ridiculous predictions like 2030.


I agree. It'll be closer to 2040 if ever.


----------



## RamzFanz

Lou W said:


> That's an easy one.
> 1) Stop the car, get out, and tell the doc to drive himself to the hospital.
> 2) Save the drowning peace maker.
> 3) Accept Nobel prize.


The doctor can't drive but he can swim. You can't swim.


----------



## RamzFanz

Gung-Ho said:


> Assuming the only way these cars would be operational is in total autonomous mode. However human override will be essential for these to be even marginally accepted by the public. Can you imagine going on a 6oo mile drive and have the car obey every speed limit to the dot. As for ticket revenues diminishing...say hello to toll roads everywhere. These cars will be able to be monitored everywhere they go so tolling will be easy.


Haven't we already covered that SDCs will speed and break traffic laws as required for safe operation? Besides, not long after introduction they will probably be allowed to speed and probably have their own lanes to speed in.


----------



## Gung-Ho

RamzFanz said:


> Haven't we already covered that SDCs will speed and break traffic laws as required for safe operation? Besides, not long after introduction they will probably be allowed to speed and probably have their own lanes to speed in.


I missed class that day. WHAT???  Give me one example where speeding on a highway or running a red light would be "safer" operation.


----------



## painfreepc

RamzFanz said:


> Haven't we already covered that SDCs will speed and break traffic laws as required for safe operation? Besides, not long after introduction they will probably be allowed to speed and probably have their own lanes to speed in.


That statement you just made about speeding is totally ridiculous, I guess you must have watched the movie I Robot too many times,

A car is still a car it can still break down it can still have a tire blowout you can still have a brake failure so how the hell would thousands of group of cars on the road be allowed to speed, and please don't mention the Autobahn as an example,

And I'm still waiting for someone like you to explain to me where are all these thousands and thousands and thousands of people are no longer driving for a living going to work, over a few decades this will number into millions of workers who no longer able to drive for a living,

This is not like decades ago with new technology replaced a few thousand workers this is going to replace Millions everybody can't be a doctor a lawyer and an engineer so where they're going to work,

all that's right I guess they're going to work at Amazon fulfillment center this shit is becoming comical.

All of you please remember me from this site in about 20 30 40 50 years this new technology is not going to help everybody in society it's only going to help industries make more money and it's going to create a whole new class of Working Poor.


----------



## painfreepc

RamzFanz said:


> The current computers being used in SDCs have the processing power of 160+ MacBooks. Trillions of observations and decisions a second. They aren't phones.
> 
> And yes, decisions. Nvidia has a system that they claim can (has already?) teach itself to drive. Deep learning/self-learning exists today and is being used in SDCs. Yes, an SDC will be able to sense the difference between a squirrel, dog, and baby better than a human, far far faster, and can anticipate and react, _in unison_, before a human has any idea it's there. It's just a matter of experience. Don't forget that when one car learns something, all of the cars in its fleet will also learn it. It doesn't need to be programmed.
> 
> The differences people ignore is that the SDC could be watching and preparing for the squirrel, dog, or baby to enter the road long long before a human can even be aware it's there. For example, in CA a bike was crossing against the red in a busy intersection. The SDC detected it, anticipated it was going to keep going and stopped. Human cars closer to the bike had no idea and almost ran the bike down.
> 
> One Google car came across a woman in an electric wheelchair chasing a duck with a broom. It didn't need to know what it was, it knew it didn't know and acted appropriately.
> 
> Do you think these robotic engineers didn't consider your scenarios a decade ago? They are not unsolvable, for any that aren't solved, it's just a matter of time and experience.
> 
> Train Engineers and Pilots? It's not cost efficient like it is with cars. Eventually, we will demand it.
> 
> Yes, millions will have to change careers within a decade. Just like elevator operators and telephone operators. Things change. We don't need to fear change that has the potential of saving 1.2M lives a year. We just need to accept it is on the horizon and prepare approprietly.


Trillions of observations really, so I guess that Tesla autonomous car needed a trillion plus one observation to not to run into that truck and kill the driver huh.

You must think I'm an absolute complete computer moron,

it's not making trillions of decisions and observation per second, is processing trillions of bytes of data per second..


----------



## Guest

RamzFanz said:


> The current computers being used in SDCs have the processing power of 160+ MacBooks. Trillions of observations and decisions a second. They aren't phones.
> 
> And yes, decisions. Nvidia has a system that they claim can (has already?) teach itself to drive. Deep learning/self-learning exists today and is being used in SDCs. Yes, an SDC will be able to sense the difference between a squirrel, dog, and baby better than a human, far far faster, and can anticipate and react, _in unison_, before a human has any idea it's there. It's just a matter of experience. Don't forget that when one car learns something, all of the cars in its fleet will also learn it. It doesn't need to be programmed.
> 
> The differences people ignore is that the SDC could be watching and preparing for the squirrel, dog, or baby to enter the road long long before a human can even be aware it's there. For example, in CA a bike was crossing against the red in a busy intersection. The SDC detected it, anticipated it was going to keep going and stopped. Human cars closer to the bike had no idea and almost ran the bike down.
> 
> One Google car came across a woman in an electric wheelchair chasing a duck with a broom. It didn't need to know what it was, it knew it didn't know and acted appropriately.
> 
> Do you think these robotic engineers didn't consider your scenarios a decade ago? They are not unsolvable, for any that aren't solved, it's just a matter of time and experience.
> 
> Train Engineers and Pilots? It's not cost efficient like it is with cars. Eventually, we will demand it.
> 
> Yes, millions will have to change careers within a decade. Just like elevator operators and telephone operators. Things change. We don't need to fear change that has the potential of saving 1.2M lives a year. We just need to accept it is on the horizon and prepare approprietly.


one woman in a wheelchair chasing a duck with a broom, coming UP!


----------



## Lou W

RamzFanz said:


> The doctor can't drive but he can swim. You can't swim.


Then screw 'em all.


----------



## RamzFanz

Robbie Das said:


> one woman in a wheelchair chasing a duck with a broom, coming UP!


Awesomeness. Zero programming for this scenario and it did exactly what it should have.

Is there one of the bike running the red light and the human drivers almost running him down while the GCar stayed put?


----------



## RamzFanz

painfreepc said:


> Trillions of observations really, so I guess that Tesla autonomous car needed a trillion plus one observation to not to run into that truck and kill the driver huh.
> 
> You must think I'm an absolute complete computer moron,
> 
> it's not making trillions of decisions and observation per second, is processing trillions of bytes of data per second..


The Tesla isn't autonomous, so you might be missing a few points in your _complete computer picture_. The error that Tesla is making is trusting humans to beta test their system in its infancy. The truck scenario should have been weeded out by professionals.

_The scalable architecture is available in a variety of configurations. These range from one passively cooled mobile processor operating at 10 watts, to a multi-chip configuration with two mobile processors and two discrete GPUs delivering 24 trillion deep learning operations per second. Multiple DRIVE PX 2 platforms can be used in parallel to enable fully autonomous driving. - See more at: http://www.nvidia.com/object/drive-px.html#sthash.hakglmlT.dpuf_


----------



## painfreepc

*2. Bad weather conditions*
We all know that Google Cars - tested in Calif. and Texas - rarely drive in bad weather, especially ice and snow.

"Operation in bad weather," said Cummings, is among the most often cited limitations in current self-driving car technologies. Cummings noted that self-driving cars are known to have problems in driving in "standing water on roadways, drizzling rain, sudden downpours, and snow." She added that the situation is exacerbated, "when coupled with the inability of self-driving cars to follow a traffic policeman."

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329257


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

Oscar Levant said:


> Travis is making two assumptions the first is that people will climb into these things , and the second is that having a fleet of cars , to the tune of hundreds of thousands and warehousing and technicians and payroll etcetera etcetera, which will have to be owned by uber or subbed out, will be cheaper.
> 
> I have my doubts on both counts
> 
> As for the safety Factor it's Realty vs perception, and perception always rules.
> 
> Using high-tech Innovations such as phones etcetera as a comparison is a false comparison simply because people want phones, will they want to climb into driverless cars? A fee will but then again quite a few will probably not. What advantage does a rider have in a driverless car that it does not have in the driven car? There is no advantage.
> 
> But there are disadvantages. for example when you get a haircut do you want to robot giving you a haircut? when you go get a drink at the bar do you want a robot serving you a drink? sometimes you just want a human there. Also I say 25% to 50% of all pings have an ambiguous address or a completely wrong address --so how are they going to have driverless cars when they can't even get the address right? In my city if you put airport as a destination you'll be taken to the other side of the airport where the rentals are.
> Also how does a robot do with a complicated aspects of picking up at airports? At small airports it might be easy but a large airports that's where it gets tricky. Large Hospital complexes or a college campuses also pose a problem because every time I arrive at these destinations I always have to talk to the rider to find out exactly where they are.
> There isn't a day that passes when I'm ubering that I won't find it necessary to communicate directly to the driver-- an option which will not be available with the driverless car


A lot of valid points here. Computers cannot use their own initiative to solve problems, because they don't have it. All they do is follow pre-written, pre-programmed instruction sequences, aka software programs. If whatever situation they encounter doesn't match a situation which had been pre-programmed into it then they won't know what to do.

Dealing with SDC is going to be frustrating for users if they expect things to work smoothly.


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> The Tesla isn't autonomous, so you might be missing a few points in your _complete computer picture_. The error that Tesla is making is trusting humans to beta test their system in its infancy. The truck scenario *should* have been weeded out by professionals.


STOP using past potential words like* could, would, should. * Say it with authority if you are correct & sure.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

painfreepc said:


> *2. Bad weather conditions*
> We all know that Google Cars - tested in Calif. and Texas - rarely drive in bad weather, especially ice and snow.
> 
> "Operation in bad weather," said Cummings, is among the most often cited limitations in current self-driving car technologies. Cummings noted that self-driving cars are known to have problems in driving in "standing water on roadways, drizzling rain, sudden downpours, and snow." She added that the situation is exacerbated, "when coupled with the inability of self-driving cars to follow a traffic policeman."
> 
> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329257


Yes, and the issue is that SDC will have to work 99.999% of the time in all conditions. It's not going to be acceptable for pax if their SDC gets confused by and shut down by a big puddle even once.


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> I don't even know what to make of your ramblings. Lots of people have been injured and remained mobile in shootings.


*We all have accepted your limited knowledge of the English language & also understand that its only after someone explains it to you 101. You post your replies.*


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> Besides, not long after introduction they will probably be allowed to speed and probably have their own lanes to speed in.


??? Lol, "speeding" means the illegal (non-allowed) excess of speed over a limit. Non-allowed speeding cannot be allowed, by simple definition.


----------



## painfreepc

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> ??? Lol, "speeding" means the illegal (non-allowed) excess of speed over a limit. Non-allowed speeding cannot be allowed, by simple definition.


I'm going to have to defend him on this one, 
I think what he is saying is as long as humans are allowed to drive and share the road with the self-driving cars, that humans will have a posted speed limit but the self-driving cars will not have a speed limit in certain rural areas.

What I would like to see happen is that humans like me, who have been driving for over 40 years and then never had one single fender bender should be allowed to have a special driver's license..


----------



## Guest

Slavic Riga said:


> Do you even think before posting. RamzFanz you are a con sales man & an amateur giving the impression of knowing it all.
> Read the sentence you posted "*Besides, not long after introduction they will probably be allowed to speed and probably have their own lanes to speed". I*n another post _you were arguing that SDC's will *not *require separate lanes & no changes* needed* to infrastructure._
> *Should I give you the OP & the POST #*
> 
> You are dumb as a rabbit coz when a rabbit covers its eyes with it ears its whole world & sight turns dark. Thinking the world cannot see it.
> You are the same you think by cutting & pasting your answers & making it one long reply nobody will notice what you quote.
> 
> STOP debating with people who know topics better than you. Lets talk & debate POLLS you dumb dumb.


The reason we dont insult each other, name call etc is so we can focus on the issue like adults and not be distracted with school boy tactics like drumpf likes to do


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Didn't know guests could post.
Hmm.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz said:


> Travis already pays for a fleet. He just pays you to take care of it. The efficiencies of an all electric SDC fleet being (rarely) serviced in a depot are self-evident.


Please cite any sources that make you think these highly technical machines will need to only be serviced "rarely."

So far you've been an utter failure at backing up your statements, so I have little faith you'll be able to here. But I had to ask anyway.


----------



## Lou W

From USA Today

Lyft cofounder says self-driving dominates in 2021

http://usat.ly/2cwteBN

SAN FRANCISCO - In five years, when you hop in a Lyft ride-sharing car odds are it'll be driving itself.That's just one of many bold predictions made by Lyft president and cofounder John Zimmer in a lengthy Medium blog post Sunday called "The Third Transportation Revolution: Lyft's Vision for the Next Ten Years and Beyond."The post lands as self-driving car initiatives mushroom, including Ford's commitment to building a self-driving car for ride-hailing purposes by 2021 and countless startups such as Drive.ai and Comma.ai sprouting up to automate existing automobiles.Perhaps the biggest step forward was made last week by Uber - a Lyft rival that dominates the market - which has begun picking up Pittsburgh-area riders in a small fleet of autonomous cars. The Pennsylvania city is home to Uber's self-driving car research facility, which is now working in tandem with partner Volvo on developing autonomous technologies.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Lyft's vision should be titled "Surviving the next two years".
They're definitely over-reaching by having any sort of "ten year vision".
And, as for "automating existing vehicles", will happen once the sun starts rising from the West. 
That would require the earth to have a different spin...oh, wait - there's that "spin" word again!


----------



## Remy Hendra

The only company who can actually build a fully autonomous cars is skynet....which will then lead us into a war with the machines lmao.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> Do you even think before posting. RamzFanz you are a con sales man & an amateur giving the impression of knowing it all.
> Read the sentence you posted "*Besides, not long after introduction they will probably be allowed to speed and probably have their own lanes to speed". I*n another post _you were arguing that SDC's will *not *require separate lanes & no changes* needed* to infrastructure._
> *Should I give you the OP & the POST #*
> 
> You are dumb as a rabbit coz when a rabbit covers its eyes with it ears its whole world & sight turns dark. Thinking the world cannot see it.
> You are the same you think by cutting & pasting your answers & making it one long reply nobody will notice what you quote.
> 
> STOP debating with people who know topics better than you. Lets talk & debate POLLS you dumb dumb.


They won't need separate lanes, read what I wrote for God's sake, they will be rewarded separate lanes after proving their worth. You seem to have nothing but agenda and I would bet no one even reads what you rant except me, and that's for humor only. You're a troll, and since I can admire a good troll, you're unfortunately not a good one.

You know more than me on this subject? Dude, that's clown level laughs.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> STOP using past potential words like* could, would, should. * Say it with authority if you are correct & sure.


Wait, you have no idea that this is a developing technology with leeway? You think your absolutes mean anything to anyone who has any clue as to what is happening?

I don't use absolutes because that would be stupid. There are expectations and benchmarks, think.



Slavic Riga said:


> Is this a latest article dumb dumb or did somebody FETCH it for you & you quoting it to us.


Why are you not banned?


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> *We all have accepted your limited knowledge of the English language & also understand that its only after someone explains it to you 101. You post your replies.*


We _*have all* _accepted your limited knowledge of the English language*,* _*and* _also understand _*it's*_ only after someone explains it to you*,* 101. You post your replies.

The first sentence is a run-on sentence with punctuation, grammatical, and spelling errors, which also makes no sense as you wrote it even if we can decipher your intent. Seriously, that first sentence makes no sense.

Then you follow that with a statement that conveys nothing. "You post your replies." What is that? Of course I post my replies. Is that not a sensible and logical thing to do? To post replies?


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> ??? Lol, "speeding" means the illegal (non-allowed) excess of speed over a limit. Non-allowed speeding cannot be allowed, by simple definition.


Um, wow. If there is a posted limit that some cars are allowed to exceed, that would be legal speeding. Let me rephrase so you can grasp the concept and not have to grab at straws: Legally exceed the posted limit.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> Please cite any sources that make you think these highly technical machines will need to only be serviced "rarely."
> 
> So far you've been an utter failure at backing up your statements, so I have little faith you'll be able to here. But I had to ask anyway.


I don't play your games. It's far far too easy for you to investigate the maintenance of an internal combustion engine vs an electric motor. It's so well understood with such a long history, it's a given.

I am typing on a 12-year-old computer that has never needed _maintenance _other than updates over the net. Same for SDCs. Electronics either work, or they get swapped, and updates happen on the fly. They don't need their carbs and idols adjusted. They don't need new spark plugs. They don't need new hoses. They don't need new rings.

One is low maintenance, the other high, figure out which is which and let me know what you find.


----------



## painfreepc

RamzFanz said:


> I don't play your games. It's far far too easy for you to investigate the maintenance of an internal combustion engine vs an electric motor. It's so well understood with such a long history, it's a given.
> 
> I am typing on a 12-year-old computer that has never needed _maintenance _other than updates over the net. Same for SDCs. Electronics either work, or they get swapped, and updates happen on the fly. They don't need their carbs and idols adjusted. They don't need new spark plugs. They don't need new hoses. They don't need new rings.
> 
> One is low maintenance, the other high, figure out which is which and let me know what you find.


Sorry but I have to back up RamzFanz on the maintenance issue, I have a 2015 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE,

I am currently at 120,000 miles I have not had one single maintenance issue not even brakes I am now on my third pair of tires and oil change every 10000 miles that's all the maintenance so far I've had to do..


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

RamzFanz said:


> Wait, you have no idea that this is a developing technology with leeway? You think your absolutes mean anything to anyone who has any clue as to what is happening?
> 
> I don't use absolutes because that would be stupid. There are expectations and benchmarks, think.
> 
> Why are you not banned?


You're lucky they let you come back here IMO.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

TwoFiddyMile said:


> You're lucky they let you come back here IMO.


If they hadn't, your musical career could've taken an upturn with your BB King rework - "the shill is gone".


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Lowestformofwit said:


> If they hadn't, your musical career could've taken an upturn with your BB King rework - "the shill is gone".


I had an epiphany last month.
I quit my band, and decided I no longer want to play covers or work in honkeytonks.
I'm 50 years old with 6 year old twins and a struggling small business.
I can't think of anything I'd like to do less than load all my equipment into my cab and play a crap bar with 14 patrons just to miss my entire nights sleep for $37.
From here on I'll be writing music for my own amusement.
My first work in progress is titled "if you got less than 10 grand in the bank, yer a shitbum".


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Could've held out for $40.00, plus all you could eat & drink.
Sounds like you were playing at the ever-popular TNC Downtown Bar - provide all your own gear and vehicle, stay out all night, poorly patronised, all for shitmoney.
Or as Van the Man puts it - "my mumma told me there'd be days like this".


----------



## Lowestformofwit

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I had an epiphany last month.
> I quit my band, and decided I no longer want to play covers or work in honkeytonks.
> I'm 50 years old with 6 year old twins and a struggling small business.


"Got a daytime job, he's doin' alright" - NOT???


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Lowestformofwit said:


> "Got a daytime job, he's doin' alright" - NOT???


1978.
Sultan's Of Swing would have done at least $400 per night.

Now they pay a guy $100 to mix beats from his MacBook.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

TwoFiddyMile said:


> 1978.
> Sultan's Of Swing would have done at least $400 per night.
> 
> Now they pay a guy $100 to mix beats from his MacBook.


'Would you Sultan at 1978 rates' - possible new thread title?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Lowestformofwit said:


> 'Would you Sultan at 1978 rates' - possible new thread title?


I read the Wiki on that song.
He based it on a real bar band from South London called (you guessed it) "The Sultans Of Swing".
How much more would it suck to spend the rest of your life telling people "no no no WE didn't name ourselves after the song, KNOPFLER stole it from US!!"


----------



## Lowestformofwit

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I read the Wiki on that song.
> He based it on a real bar band from South London called (you guessed it) "The Sultans Of Swing".
> How much more would it suck to spend the rest of your life telling people "no no no WE didn't name ourselves after the song, KNOPFLER stole it from US!!"


Never trust a Scotsman!!
Seriously though, MK's stock-in-trade is story telling (reinforced by his solo stuff), so it's just another narrative, I guess, and a pretty accurate portrayal of a lot of bar bands.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

NEWS FLASH!
Udder CEO Travellers Kashnicked has just announced that the legendary John Galt has been appointed its Chief of WANK (World Autonomous New Kars) and is bringing with him a revolutionary new engine that "runs on electricity in the air".
When Charles, a former 97lb weakling famous for body building mail order bullshit back in the day, was asked for a comment, Atlas shrugged and asked "Who is John Galt?".
More news from South Africa: Rand loses value and credibility.


----------



## RamzFanz

TwoFiddyMile said:


> You're lucky they let you come back here IMO.


You're lucky cabbies are even allowed here.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

RamzFanz said:


> You're lucky cabbies are even allowed here.


Several are moderators.
Clearly, UPnet management doesn't share your views.


----------



## autofill

Can't wait for fully autonomous uber cars. Drunk pax now have a place to sleep and can't be kicked out, all at a rate of 10 cents a minute. That's cheaper than staying at a hotel for the night.


----------



## RamzFanz

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Several are moderators.
> Clearly, UPnet management doesn't share your views.


I realise that.


----------



## RamzFanz

autofill said:


> Can't wait for fully autonomous uber cars. Drunk pax now have a place to sleep and can't be kicked out, all at a rate of 10 cents a minute. That's cheaper than staying at a hotel for the night.


That's true. Sleeping drunks and other unconscious people will be an issue. I would assume they would be taken to the police, hospital, or an emergency contact person would be notified.

In the end though, why would the TNC care if they are being paid?


----------



## 4736353377384555736

painfreepc said:


> Sorry but I have to back up RamzFanz on the maintenance issue, I have a 2015 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE,
> 
> I am currently at 120,000 miles I have not had one single maintenance issue not even brakes I am now on my third pair of tires and oil change every 10000 miles that's all the maintenance so far I've had to do..


Yours isn't self-driving nor is it used unsupervised by passengers.

The self-driving components will require constant maintenance. The interiors will as well. Anyone who's driven a car2go knows that people destroy interiors in thousands of tiny ways when they're unsupervised.


----------



## Uber48208

Uh oh...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778042585675919364

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778046908551958529


----------



## Ubermon

UberNorthDfw said:


> So Much for Uber's self driving dreams:
> 
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...-americas-top-transportation-safety-official/


And now..
*Federal officials plan aggressive approach to driverless cars*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...78411e-7e92-11e6-8d0c-fb6c00c90481_story.html


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> Um, wow. If there is a posted limit that some cars are allowed to exceed, that would be legal speeding. Let me rephrase so you can grasp the concept and not have to grab at straws: Legally exceed the posted limit.


If they can legally exceed a limit, then it's not a limit. There is no such thing as "legal speeding". If it's legal, it's not speeding. Come on, you really cannot be that dim. I hope not, anyway.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Ubermon said:


> And now..
> *Federal officials plan aggressive approach to driverless cars*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...78411e-7e92-11e6-8d0c-fb6c00c90481_story.html


So far, Uber and Lyft have avoided dealing with the Federal Government.
Looks like that face off is coming soon 
I hope the feds are not rats and don't roll over like the states have.


----------



## Ubermon

TwoFiddyMile said:


> So far, Uber and Lyft have avoided dealing with the Federal Government.
> Looks like that face off is coming soon
> I hope the feds are not rats and don't roll over like the states have.


From this article and others, it seems to me they're on board and want to regulate as lightly and quickly as possible as to not affect development and keep up with the rapid advancements. Also seems like they want to unify the patchwork of state regulations.

SMH, I cannot help but feel this will further our already sedentary society. We're taking the work out of travelling. Next, we'll take the work out of work.

For all our ingenuity, we don't have a speck of wisdom.


----------



## painfreepc

Ubermon said:


> From this article and others, it seems to me they're on board and want to regulate as lightly and quickly as possible as to not affect development and keep up with the rapid advancements. Also seems like they want to unify the patchwork of state regulations.
> 
> SMH, I cannot help but feel this will further our already sedentary society. We're taking the work out of travelling. Next, we'll take the work out of work.
> 
> For all our ingenuity, we don't have a speck of wisdom.


Won't need jobs or money, we will all be in a high-rise government free housing inhaling slow mo all day,

-Judge Dredd movie reference-


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Ubermon said:


> From this article and others, it seems to me they're on board and want to regulate as lightly and quickly as possible as to not affect development and keep up with the rapid advancements.


It's just the opening salvo, IMHO. The feds want to make sure they have a big part in the development and regulation of SDCs, which is why they're stepping in now, well before they're on the road in any meaningful numbers.


----------



## knowledgethrow

TwoFiddyMile said:


> So far, Uber and Lyft have avoided dealing with the Federal Government.
> Looks like that face off is coming soon
> I hope the feds are not rats and don't roll over like the states have.


Do you remember the US Airways/AA merger? The Trade Commission said they'd not approve it, as it'd have negative, monopoly-like effects on customers. So what happened? A couple months later the merger was approved, monopolies and negative effects for consumers be damned.

The big players will flex their lobbying and PR muscle and they will do whatever they want, while regulation will keep the market from getting too overcrowded for them.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

knowledgethrow said:


> Do you remember the US Airways/AA merger? The Trade Commission said they'd not approve it, as it'd have negative, monopoly-like effects on customers. So what happened? A couple months later the merger was approved, monopolies and negative effects for consumers be damned.
> 
> The big players will flex their lobbying and PR muscle and they will do whatever they want, while regulation will keep the market from getting too overcrowded for them.


Duffel bags full of $100 bills have big influence.


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> If they can legally exceed a limit, then it's not a limit. There is no such thing as "legal speeding". If it's legal, it's not speeding. Come on, you really cannot be that dim. I hope not, anyway.


It would remain a limit for humans. It's a pretty simple concept.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Uber48208 said:


> Uh oh...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778042585675919364
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778046908551958529
> View attachment 63512
> 
> 
> View attachment 63518


"Pull over, non-driver!".
Breaking News:Erik Estrada & Larry Wilcox re-think TV comeback plans.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz said:


> It would remain a limit for humans. It's a pretty simple concept.


Having speed limits for one class of vehicle and none for others would cause huge problems on the road. Traffic is safest when there isn't a great disparity between the speeds of adjacent cars.

The only time it's used is for tractor trailers on the highway which are confined to the far right lanes anyway.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> It would remain a limit for humans. It's a pretty simple concept.


SMH; you were talking about SDC, not humans. You can't even follow your own argument without going off on an irrelevant tangent. Very bizarre.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

4736353377384555736 said:


> Having speed limits for one class of vehicle and none for others would cause huge problems on the road. Traffic is safest when there isn't a great disparity between the speeds of adjacent cars.
> 
> The only time it's used is for tractor trailers on the highway which are confined to the far right lanes anyway.


Yes, speed limits exist not only because there are cars on the roads, but also for the benefit of pedestrians. Lawmakers know that pedestrians are imperfect and illogical and they will walk out into the street without looking, and misjudge vehicle speeds and distances etc.

And yes, the only place there are differing speed limits based on vehicle class is on the highway, where pedestrians are not present.

The notion that SDC would be given a higher speed limit in general is flawed for this reason.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Lou W said:


> From USA Today
> 
> Lyft cofounder says self-driving dominates in 2021
> 
> http://usat.ly/2cwteBN
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO - In five years, when you hop in a Lyft ride-sharing car odds are it'll be driving itself.That's just one of many bold predictions made by Lyft president and cofounder John Zimmer in a lengthy Medium blog post Sunday called "The Third Transportation Revolution: Lyft's Vision for the Next Ten Years and Beyond."The post lands as self-driving car initiatives mushroom, including Ford's commitment to building a self-driving car for ride-hailing purposes by 2021 and countless startups such as Drive.ai and Comma.ai sprouting up to automate existing automobiles.Perhaps the biggest step forward was made last week by Uber - a Lyft rival that dominates the market - which has begun picking up Pittsburgh-area riders in a small fleet of autonomous cars. The Pennsylvania city is home to Uber's self-driving car research facility, which is now working in tandem with partner Volvo on developing autonomous technologies.


Would he be willing to put his job where his mouth is ? I bet he'd have a different answer if he made a bet for his job that there won't be real self driving cars on the roads taking passengers in 2021.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

It's really funny I have to use the words "real self-driving" cars whenever I mention self-driving cars instead of just "self-driving cars".


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> SMH; you were talking about SDC, not humans. You can't even follow your own argument without going off on an irrelevant tangent. Very bizarre.


RamzFanz is an American original.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Will cops be allowed to pull over real self driving cars when they break the law ? How will the car know to pull over ? Who gets the ticket ?

There are millions of cars on the road each day that have no accidents yet Travis and his buddies want to act like SDC's are going to solve some sort of problem they are creating with these cars being driving time bombs waiting to go off and kill someone. Is there really a need to try to reinvent the wheel ?


----------



## Gung-Ho

Step one. Use stolen credit card.
Step two. Order self driving car.
Step three. Load car trunk with explosives.
Step four. Put real life like mannequin in back seat.
Step five. Send it to busy downtown area or airport.
Step six. Wait for the Ba-Ba-Ba- BOOM!

You heard it here first.


----------



## zordac

RamzFanz said:


> I'd be happy to know I could summon a car and not have to be carried to one or wait for an ambulance.





Gung-Ho said:


> Step one. Use stolen credit card.
> Step two. Order self driving car.
> Step three. Load car trunk with explosives.
> Step four. Put real life like mannequin in back seat.
> Step five. Send it to busy downtown area or airport.
> Step six. Wait for the Ba-Ba-Ba- BOOM!
> 
> You heard it here first.


You obviously don't know anything about the autonomous bomb sniffing dogs they will have in the trunk and the mannequin detectors they have in the back seat.
They are testing these in the Netherlands now and expect to have them in the cars by the end of next week.
They are also working on autonomous guide dogs for blind robots in Mexico. I saw that in the national enquirer the other day at Walmart.

How is my RamzFanz impersonation?
I'm not sure I got the facial expressions correct but it's still a work in progress...

b.t.w. I can totally see that happening Gung-Ho. Scary thought for sure.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Lowestformofwit said:


> "Pull over, non-driver!".
> Breaking News:Erik Estrada & Larry Wilcox re-think TV comeback plans.


Since there IS a driver who is supposed to take over when necessary, do they get the ticket? At what point will Uber not pay those? Or will they just fire them for not doing their job?

If the car kills someone and the "driver" is drunk or stoned or texting--how are they charged? The same as if they weren't impaired? There has to be a delay while they figure out the car didn't see the red light. How much of the delay is the car and then having to react, and how much is their slow reaction time due to impairment? Can Uber be charged with unsafe driving since they are "operating" the car 99% of the time or is it all on the "driver" who occasionally steps in? That can end up being a criminal, not civil, charge.

This should be a lot of fun to see in court.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

I'm officially disassociating myself from bomb posts, 
Dear Feds,
I ain't got nothin to do with this.
Please take me off this latest watch list.
Sincerely,
Twofiddymile


----------



## rembrandt

SDC is a scam to defraud the investors - that is the bottom line. Google who conducted the most tests on SDC than anyone in the planet , is quiet on making audacious comments.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> Having speed limits for one class of vehicle and none for others would cause huge problems on the road. Traffic is safest when there isn't a great disparity between the speeds of adjacent cars.
> 
> The only time it's used is for tractor trailers on the highway which are confined to the far right lanes anyway.


Which is why some are predicting SDCs will be given their own lanes in short order after they become common.


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> SMH; you were talking about SDC, not humans. You can't even follow your own argument without going off on an irrelevant tangent. Very bizarre.


Yes, I was. Which part didn't you get?


----------



## RamzFanz

zordac said:


> You obviously don't know anything about the autonomous bomb sniffing dogs they will have in the trunk and the mannequin detectors they have in the back seat.
> They are testing these in the Netherlands now and expect to have them in the cars by the end of next week.
> They are also working on autonomous guide dogs for blind robots in Mexico. I saw that in the national enquirer the other day at Walmart.
> 
> How is my RamzFanz impersonation?
> I'm not sure I got the facial expressions correct but it's still a work in progress...
> 
> b.t.w. I can totally see that happening Gung-Ho. Scary thought for sure.


You see people, that's how you insult! Wit, for god's sake. It's refreshing and funny zordac, thanks.

What's to stop them? Nothing. What's to stop a human from doing the same now? Nothing. See Oklahoma City bombing amongst others.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz said:


> Which is why some are predicting SDCs will be given their own lanes in short order after they become common.


Who exactly are predicting this? I see a proposal,not a prediction.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> Who exactly are predicting this? I see a proposal,not a prediction.


Many. If you wish to know, start your research, and then form an opinion.


----------

