# Fully Autonomous Vehicles By 2021?



## SibeRescueBrian

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social


----------



## heynow321

expecting humans to remain alert and ready to take over when the system fails would be a ****ing catastrophe. People already can't pay attention to driving WHILE THEY'RE DRIVING! That's exactly why that dumbass in the tesla died and its also the reason why planes and trains aren't fully automated.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Unless a SDC can completely and totally drive itself it's self-defeating to ever own one of these since we know that is physically impossible from a realistic standpoint and we know nobody in their right mind will ever order one of these from an Uber. We really have nothing to worry about, as drivers.


----------



## SibeRescueBrian

Even when the technology is perfected, who knows how long it will take for state and federal regulations to be hammered out? There's also going to have to be a massive change in how insurance and liability issues are determined. I have no doubt that all this will eventually be figured out, but in only 4 years? That I don't know.


----------



## Maven

heynow321 said:


> expecting humans to remain alert and ready to take over when the system fails would be a &%[email protected]!*ing catastrophe...


Correct! That's why Robo-Cars will be programed to come to a complete stop in an emergency, pulling safely off-to-the-side. if possible. The human inside will be able to operate the emergency exit mechanism, not move the vehicle. That will be the responsibility of the maintenance crew dispatched after receiving a signal from the disabled vehicle.


SibeRescueBrian said:


> ... who knows how long it will take for state and federal regulations to be hammered out? There's also going to have to be a massive change in how insurance and liability issues are determined. I have no doubt that all this will eventually be figured out, but in only 4 years? That I don't know.


Correct! The political issues will take longer and cost more to resolve then the technical issues, but it's only a matter of time and money. Backers of autonomous vehicles have more then enough of both.


----------



## tohunt4me

SibeRescueBrian said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social


Yet still . . . . .my clothes dryer can not fold clothes !
I can send the car to the store for a 6 pack . . . but nooooo . . .still have to take the clothes out the washer and put it in the dryer !


----------



## tohunt4me

There


Maven said:


> Correct! That's why Robo-Cars will be programed to come to a complete stop in an emergency, pulling safely off-to-the-side. if possible. The human inside will be able to operate the emergency exit mechanism, not move the vehicle. That will be the responsibility of the maintenance crew dispatched after receiving a signal from the disabled vehicle.
> 
> Correct! The political issues will take longer and cost more to resolve then the technical issues, but it's only a matter of time and money. Backers of autonomous vehicles have more then enough of both.


 THERE ARE NO SIDES IN MY CITY !
THE CAR WILL PULL OVER AND WAIT FOR MAINTENENCE CREW ? MAINTENENCE CREW will have to wait for city to remove 3 parking boots by the time they get there !
Oh that's hilarious. What happens when a deer leaps out in front of one doing 50 ?
Birds will dive on front of it to laugh when it stops.


----------



## tohunt4me

Maven said:


> Correct! That's why Robo-Cars will be programed to come to a complete stop in an emergency, pulling safely off-to-the-side. if possible. The human inside will be able to operate the emergency exit mechanism, not move the vehicle. That will be the responsibility of the maintenance crew dispatched after receiving a signal from the disabled vehicle.
> 
> Correct! The political issues will take longer and cost more to resolve then the technical issues, but it's only a matter of time and money. Backers of autonomous vehicles have more then enough of both.


" THE CAR OF THE FUTURE "!


----------



## SibeRescueBrian

tohunt4me said:


> " THE CAR OF THE FUTURE "!


Orrrrrr .....


----------



## Maven

tohunt4me said:


> ... THERE ARE NO SIDES IN MY CITY ! THE CAR WILL PULL OVER AND WAIT FOR MAINTENENCE CREW ? MAINTENENCE CREW will have to wait for city to remove 3 parking boots by the time they get there !


Ouch! All that shouting (CAPS) is hurting my ears. Like I said, if no "sides" and no other safer place to move then a disabled autonomous vehicle will not move until a tow truck arrives. A tow truck does not care how many parking boots are on a car.


tohunt4me said:


> ... What happens when a deer leaps out in front of one doing 50 ? Birds will dive on front of it to laugh when it stops.


How is this different from a car hit by a deer when driven by a person? In both cases, if the car is disabled then it does not move until a tow truck arrives. If the tow truck driver is a hunter then any diving birds are target practice.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Maven said:


> Ouch! All that shouting (CAPS) is hurting my ears. Like I said, if no "sides" and no other safer place to move then a disabled autonomous vehicle will not move until a tow truck arrives. A tow truck does not care how many parking boots are on a car.
> 
> How is this different from a car hit by a deer when driven by a person? In both cases, if the car is disabled then it does not move until a tow truck arrives. If the tow truck driver is a hunter then any diving birds are target practice.


So even though even Google has given up on autonomous cars, saying it's "impractical" to ever try to have a fully autonomous SDC, you still think it's possible ?


----------



## Maven

uberdriverfornow said:


> So even though even Google has given up on autonomous cars, saying it's "impractical" to ever try to have a fully autonomous SDC, you still think it's possible ?


Yep. There are dozens of organizations spending billions of dollars to make autonomous cars a reality. At least one of them, probably more, will succeed.

I do not put much importance to Google dropping out. Despite its size, _actually because of its size,_ Google has failed at many new technologies in the past. The normal process is for a larger corporation, like Google, to wait for a smaller, more nimble and innovative company to succeed then buy them out.


----------



## Jagent

Depends on the definition of "fully autonomous." Does it mean you can set the cruise on the highway, fall asleep and wake up at a rest stop near your destination? If so, I can see that. 

Does it mean it can drive around picking up random pax? Because I cannot see that happening in 20 years.


----------



## Maven

I imagine that "fully autonomous" has different definitions for different people, but the consensus is probably closer to "it can drive around picking up random pax". The basic design is available and driving around USA cities _*today*_. I agree it will take many years to work out all the kinks and problems, but resolving the technical issues may take far less than 20 years. Application of enough money can greatly speed up technological development, unless there is some natural law that cannot be overcome (example: true AI). However, it may even take longer for public and political acceptance.


----------



## heynow321

There are no autonomous cars in the U.S. picking up passengers without massive human driver intervention.


----------



## Maven

heynow321 said:


> There are no autonomous cars in the us picking up passengers without massive human driver intervention.


I'm really trying to wake drivers up so they will get organized and fight for their rights. Rideshare drivers need to join forces with each other, Taxi drivers and Truckers to have a chance against the vast amount of money and power that wants autonomous vehicles to succeed, resulting in us all becoming displaced workers in the not too distant future.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

Let me know when engineers are removed from trains.

Self-driving cars will be on the road a decade after that.


----------



## Driving and Driven

tohunt4me said:


> Yet still . . . . .my clothes dryer can not fold clothes !
> I can send the car to the store for a 6 pack . . . but nooooo . . .still have to take the clothes out the washer and put it in the dryer !


Stand by...one moment...hold on...hold...hooold...

https://laundroid.sevendreamers.com/en/?gclid=CIqI196undICFQcoaQodOpkHaA


----------



## Driving and Driven

tohunt4me said:


> Yet still . . . . .my clothes dryer can not fold clothes !
> I can send the car to the store for a 6 pack . . . but nooooo . . .still have to take the clothes out the washer and put it in the dryer !


What's this?!

https://www.foldimate.com/


----------



## heynow321

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Let me know when engineers are removed from trains.
> 
> Self-driving cars will be on the road a decade after that.


Exactly. It'll probably happen once mates are off ships as well


----------



## Driving and Driven

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Let me know when engineers are removed from trains.
> 
> Self-driving cars will be on the road a decade after that.


There are autonomous trains in Dallas. I took a photo a few months ago while driving Uber. I will see if I can find it.


----------



## Maven

The last few replies made me think that sometimes even the smartest people can be a bit short-sighted.

There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. - Steve Ballmer, USA Today, April 30, 2007.
There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home. - Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), 1977
That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced. - Scientific American, January 2, 1909.
Television? The word is half Latin and half Greek. No good can come of it. - C. P. Scott, BBC History of television.
I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. -Thomas J. Watson, chairman of IBM, on seeing the first mainframe computer in 1943.
Is the rate of technological change accelerating? If so, will it be accompanied by profound social and cultural change?


----------



## heynow321

The technology for level 5 autonomous cars doesn't exist. That's a big difference from the iphone which was nothing but a remarketed and rebranded Palm pilot using technology that had been around for quite some time.


----------



## Maven

"Level 5" has been mentioned, but not explained. Here's what you need to know about levels 0-5. The biggest difference is that, starting at Level 3, the automated driving system becomes able to monitor the driving environment.

Level 0: This one is pretty basic. The driver (human) controls it all: steering, brakes, throttle, power. It's what you've been doing all along.

Level 1: This driver-assistance level means that most functions are still controlled by the driver, but a specific function (like steering or accelerating) can be done automatically by the car.

Level 2: In level 2, at least one driver assistance system of "both steering and acceleration/ deceleration using information about the driving environment" is automated, like cruise control and lane-centering. It means that the "driver is disengaged from physically operating the vehicle by having his or her hands off the steering wheel AND foot off pedal at the same time," according to the SAE. The driver must still always be ready to take control of the vehicle, however.

Level 3: Drivers are still necessary in level 3 cars, but are able to completely shift "safety-critical functions" to the vehicle, under certain traffic or environmental conditions. It means that the driver is still present and will intervene if necessary, but is not required to monitor the situation in the same way it does for the previous levels. Jim McBride, autonomous vehicles expert at Ford, said this is "the biggest demarcation is between Levels 3 and 4." He's focused on getting Ford straight to Level 4, since Level 3, which involves transferring control from car to human, can often pose difficulties. "We're not going to ask the driver to instantaneously intervene-that's not a fair proposition," McBride said.

Level 4: This is what is meant by "fully autonomous." Level 4 vehicles are "designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip." However, it's important to note that this is limited to the "operational design domain (ODD)" of the vehicle-meaning it does not cover every driving scenario.

Level 5: This refers to a fully-autonomous system that expects the vehicle's performance to equal that of a human driver, in every driving scenario-including extreme environments like dirt roads that are unlikely to be navigated by driverless vehicles in the near future.

A fully autonomous car (level 4) that encounters a situation that it cannot handle might be temporarily taken over by a remote human operator, not the rider, who might be unaware this has even occurred. Security protocols would prevent hacking by unauthorized parties.

Level 4 will arrive much sooner than level 5 and will likely be the initial commercial implementation in 2021. Also, riders should have NO expectation of privacy. Everything inside and outside the vehicle may be recorded for legal purposes.

References: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/autonomous-driving-levels-0-to-5-understanding-the-differences/
http://www.businessinsider.com/self-driving-cars-not-feasible-in-5-years-automakers-say-2017-1


----------



## heynow321

Yes bc having a "remote operator " sounds extremely safe. So who do you work for? Uber? Industry lobbyist?


----------



## Maven

heynow321 said:


> Yes bc having a "remote operator " sounds extremely safe. So who do you work for? Uber? Industry lobbyist?


If the U.S. military can use remote operators to fly combat drones that destroy stuff
then Uber can use remote operators to drive cars that d.... uh, never mind 

And yes, you have discovered my secrets. I am da UberBoss Extrodinaire! and in my spare time ...
I am the very Model of a Modern Major General!
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical,
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted too with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news---
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

Would you like to hear the rest? I do birthday parties and corporate events


----------



## heynow321

yeah military drones and driving a car remotely through a construction zone are not related whatsoever. good try though.


----------



## RamzFanz

uberdriverfornow said:


> Unless a SDC can completely and totally drive itself it's self-defeating to ever own one of these since we know that is physically impossible from a realistic standpoint and we know nobody in their right mind will ever order one of these from an Uber. We really have nothing to worry about, as drivers.


Nope. If it meets a situation it can't figure out it can be remotely driven. In fact, that's what some SDC companies are preparing for.



SibeRescueBrian said:


> Even when the technology is perfected, who knows how long it will take for state and federal regulations to be hammered out? There's also going to have to be a massive change in how insurance and liability issues are determined. I have no doubt that all this will eventually be figured out, but in only 4 years? That I don't know.


It's being fast tracked federally. They have already issued guidelines. Chances are good the the feds will override states on this subject.



tohunt4me said:


> Yet still . . . . .my clothes dryer can not fold clothes !
> I can send the car to the store for a 6 pack . . . but nooooo . . .still have to take the clothes out the washer and put it in the dryer !









uberdriverfornow said:


> So even though even Google has given up on autonomous cars, saying it's "impractical" to ever try to have a fully autonomous SDC, you still think it's possible ?


Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?

Google has _never_ said it was giving up on level 5 fully autonomous SDCs in any way. They just spun off Wamo and hired a marketing CEO to start marketing the product! They are adding 100 more test vehicles to 150ish they already have!

What Google _did _say was that they were not taking out the human controls because of state regulations they can't easily overcome. 100% polar opposite of what you said.



heynow321 said:


> There are no autonomous cars in the U.S. picking up passengers without massive human driver intervention.


Not true. They are doing it now with human oversight and no intervention.








Maven said:


> I do not put much importance to Google dropping out.


They didn't, he just likes to say they did.



Jagent said:


> Does it mean it can drive around picking up random pax? Because I cannot see that happening in 20 years.


1-4 years according to almost every industry expert and corporation involved.



Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Let me know when engineers are removed from trains.
> 
> Self-driving cars will be on the road a decade after that.


Empty comparison. Replacing a single person who monitors a vehicle with hundreds of passangers has no financial incentive like SDCs do.



heynow321 said:


> Exactly. It'll probably happen once mates are off ships as well


See above. The navy has self-piloting boats by the way, so your late to the party.



heynow321 said:


> The technology for level 5 autonomous cars doesn't exist.


The technology certainly does exist. The programming is what is being tested and finished.



heynow321 said:


> Yes bc having a "remote operator " sounds extremely safe. So who do you work for? Uber? Industry lobbyist?


Remote driving would be very safe. Far safer than a human driver that doesn't have a 360 degree view or lightning fast reflexes. It wouldn't even need to be "driving", it could be as simple as drawing a path on a computer screen for the car to follow or choosing from the options the car gives you.

Once your argument devolves into calling people shills for being honest, you know you've lost the debate.


----------



## heynow321

lol ramz I hope you're not betting your retirement money on this. You're going to look as foolish as the pets.com investors.

Watch that video again. Notice where TWICE it stopped in the middle of the road b/c of a car/truck on the right that was partially blocking the lane. There was plenty of room to get through even with head on traffic moving but it was being overly cautious. these things are going to **** up traffic so badly. Good thing they won't get very far.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

I often work in Chandler, AZ, a hotbed of SDC testing.

Google, Uber, and intel all have cars roaming around here, and every one of them is manned by two people.

Two people. Not my idea of autonomous.


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> lol ramz I hope you're not betting your retirement money on this. You're going to look as foolish as the pets.com investors.
> 
> Watch that video again. Notice where TWICE it stopped in the middle of the road b/c of a car/truck on the right that was partially blocking the lane. There was plenty of room to get through even with head on traffic moving but it was being overly cautious. these things are going to &%[email protected]!* up traffic so badly. Good thing they won't get very far.


So we agree that you were incorrect in stating _There are no autonomous cars in the U.S. picking up passengers without massive human driver intervention.
_
We can discuss when and how they should pass double parked vehicles all day long, but we _can _agree it _did _pass them.



Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> I often work in Chandler, AZ, a hotbed of SDC testing.
> 
> Google, Uber, and intel all have cars roaming around here, and every one of them is manned by two people.
> 
> Two people. Not my idea of autonomous.


If the car is driving, it's self driving whether there are 2 or 10 people in it or whether it has human controls or not. Thinking they won't be driving empty soon just because they are still in testing is short sighted. The last full report Google gave over a year ago, the car went 7 straight months with zero necessary human intervention. Over _a year_ ago.


----------



## heynow321

lol no ramz. Having two people in the car ready to take over any time =/= autonomous cars. 

I'd like to see a video of how it does in the rain and snow with poor markings on the road with a couple accidents and multiple construction projects all over the city, just like in seattle.


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> lol no ramz. Having two people in the car ready to take over any time =/= autonomous cars.
> 
> I'd like to see a video of how it does in the rain and snow with poor markings on the road with a couple accidents and multiple construction projects all over the city, just like in seattle.


It's only not self driving when they have to take over. That didn't happen for seven straight months over a year ago. The next report from Waymo will give us a much better picture of close they are. Google thinks they're close or they would not have been spun off with a marketing non-tech CEO.

They already drive in the rain and have been tested in the snow. They don't ever need lane markings so I'm not sure where that argument's headed. Accidents and construction? They do that every single day.


----------



## Wedgey

RamzFanz said:


> It's only not self driving when they have to take over. That didn't happen for seven straight months over a year ago. The next report from Waymo will give us a much better picture of close they are. Google thinks they're close or they would not have been spun off with a marketing non-tech CEO.
> 
> They already drive in the rain and have been tested in the snow. They don't ever need lane markings so I'm not sure where that argument's headed.


You're still hung up on self-driving vehicles?


----------



## RamzFanz

Wedgey said:


> You're still hung up on self-driving vehicles?


Just keeping it real. Too many people trying to convince other drivers they aren't coming when they are almost here.


----------



## Wedgey

So far the experiments have proven disastrous.


----------



## heynow321

And what's going to happen when those sensors get covered in mud/dirt/snow? How about in cities (like seattle) that don't have room to pull over on the side of the street? Are we going to demolish some sky scrapers to remake the entire block to accommodate the needs of a private company? I don't think tax payers will enjoy that...


----------



## RamzFanz

Wedgey said:


> So far the experiments have proven disastrous.


Zero SDC caused crashes is disastrous?



heynow321 said:


> And what's going to happen when those sensors get covered in mud/dirt/snow? How about in cities (like seattle) that don't have room to pull over on the side of the street? Are we going to demolish some sky scrapers to remake the entire block to accommodate the needs of a private company? I don't think tax payers will enjoy that...


You're right! How in the world could they have not thought of that?! Hundreds of billions invested, decades of research, while employing some of the world's top engineering minds and they will be defeated by mud/dirt/snow! Let's see, maybe they could be recessed behind glass that is self cleaning with something rubber that goes back and forth in a wiping motion and applies a liquid? I'm just throwing darts here.

No room to pull over?! So there are no cars in Seattle?


----------



## heynow321

Keep grasping ramz...keep grasping


----------



## UsedToBeAPartner

No matter how soon the auto driving / driverless car comes along it will come to a quick end the first time a terrorist calls the empty car, loads the bomb on board and sets the destination. BOOM and he didn't even have to die doing it!


----------



## DeplorableDonald

I was listening to C-SPAN and they were airing a hearing on self-driving cars. The Volvo representative said the earliest self-driving cars are going to be used, and he said in limited use, is 2021.

In this article the CEO of Mercedes Benz says the biggest problem SDCs will face is... human drivers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/17/humans-will-bully-robot-cars-mercedes-chief-warns/

Having SDCs like in the movie Demolition Man is WAY off.


----------



## heynow321

The other big thing that these losers who are afraid of driving forget is that millions and millions of people _enjoy_ driving. You will never be able to create legislature that restricts our mobility. I don't care that 32k people die (how many of that total is due to their own fault?) which is .01% of the population.


----------



## SibeRescueBrian

heynow321 said:


> The other big thing that these losers who are afraid of driving forget is that millions and millions of people _enjoy_ driving. You will never be able to create legislature that restricts our mobility. I don't care that 32k people die (how many of that total is due to their own fault?) which is .01% of the population.


Excellent point!


----------



## Maven

heynow321 said:


> ... I don't care that 32k people die (how many of that total is due to their own fault?) which is .01% of the population.





SibeRescueBrian said:


> Excellent point!


Some people always feel that they have a god-given right to do anything they damn-well please, regardless of how many others it hurts or kills. The larger society gives them labels and does what is necessary to protect itself. If a significant part of the population agrees with opposing views then a compromise is reached. That is called politics. A recent example of society compromising between two opposite viewpoints is smoking.

Recall how over many decades, the danger of secondhand smoke was the reason for the USA to enact laws that increasingly restricted the freedom of the decreasing minority of smokers to light up wherever and whenever they wished. A large majority of public support for the "right-to-smoke", supported by constant advertising, gradually changed to an even larger majority against smokers endangering them. Today smokers have been banned from both advertising and public places, yet allowed to spend their money to buy ridiculously high priced cigarettes, inflated by government taxes.


----------



## Bulls23

RamzFanz said:


> Just keeping it real. Too many people trying to convince other drivers they aren't coming when they are almost here.


Autopilots have been around for decades now. Yet, I haven't heard of a single "fully autonomous" flight or train ride. Have you?


----------



## Slim Pete

Maven said:


> I'm really trying to wake drivers up so they will get organized and fight for their rights. Rideshare drivers need to join forces with each other, Taxi drivers and Truckers to have a chance against the vast amount of money and power that wants autonomous vehicles to succeed, resulting in us all becoming displaced workers in the not too distant future.


You have totally lost my respect with this post.


----------



## moJohoJo

SibeRescueBrian said:


> Even when the technology is perfected, who knows how long it will take for state and federal regulations to be hammered out? There's also going to have to be a massive change in how insurance and liability issues are determined. I have no doubt that all this will eventually be figured out, but in only 4 years? That I don't know.


It'll take 40 years before everything is hammered out . With as many drivers as Uber has pissed off i guarantee passengers ( drivers ) are going to leave human feces, glue and whatever they can on the seats, squash it on the windows and floorboard so nobody will take a ride in an driverless car ever again . Something Uber or anyone else hasn't thought of yet .


----------



## Maven

Slim Pete said:


> You have totally lost my respect with this post.


Gee wiz, you done gone and hurt my widdy, biddy feelings.  What can I do to regain your respect? 
Even better, can you be a tad more specific. What don't you like? What is your position?


moJohoJo said:


> It'll take 40 years before everything is hammered out . With as many drivers as Uber has pissed off i guarantee passengers ( drivers ) are going to leave human feces, glue and whatever they can on the seats, squash it on the windows and floorboard so nobody will take a ride in an driverless car ever again . Something Uber or anyone else hasn't thought of yet .


You do realize that there will be cameras on the inside too. Anyone who defaces the vehicle will be charged a cleaning fee. Wanna bet that, unlike today, Uber also decides to charge for the time it is out-of-service too? Hiding behind a disguise will not work, nor will disabling the cameras, since an offender will be traced through the credit card associated with the account.


----------



## tohunt4me

SibeRescueBrian said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social


The Rise of the Machine.
The A.I. Robots interviewed said they would " keep a few humans as 'pets' for ' old times sake' "
Sentimental Robots . . . are you ready ? Your Robot Government will use the web of satellites and traffic light cameras to keep a good eye on you at all times.

Robots keeping People as pets.
Perhaps,the Garden of Eden wasn't quite what you thought it was.
Perhaps it was a zoo.
Perhaps ,it has all been done before . . . .
Perhaps this is why the black cube at Mecca reminds me of the new N.S.A. Building. Will we all bow to a CIRCUIT BOARD GOD in the Future ?
The new Kaaba.



Maven said:


> Correct! That's why Robo-Cars will be programed to come to a complete stop in an emergency, pulling safely off-to-the-side. if possible. The human inside will be able to operate the emergency exit mechanism, not move the vehicle. That will be the responsibility of the maintenance crew dispatched after receiving a signal from the disabled vehicle.
> 
> Correct! The political issues will take longer and cost more to resolve then the technical issues, but it's only a matter of time and money. Backers of autonomous vehicles have more then enough of both.


Such a shame the influence of Money over Time in the Decisions of our Future.
And what is Money ? A paper ledger of stored and traded time.
Humming " Time in a Bottle"- Jim Croce. X amount of stored time on ' 'green paper vouchers' will buy you a Robot Car. Pay attention to what the Corporation's are TRADING YOUR TIME FUTURES FOR !


----------



## Pig Pen

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Let me know when engineers are removed from trains.
> 
> Self-driving cars will be on the road a decade after that.


Or when planes don't need pilots.


----------



## Novus Caesar

Again, what happens when drivers vomit in the car or urinate over the seat? Who finds out? The next rider? What happens when morons enter the wrong address on the map or are too stupid? What happens when they are all drinking and smoking in the car. No one to tell them no. Who cleans up the trash out of the car? What happens when 12 year olds get in with no adult? 

How long to find the passengers who are too stupid to find it and you can text back and forth or call to find them in the wrong area?


----------



## RamzFanz

Bulls23 said:


> Autopilots have been around for decades now. Yet, I haven't heard of a single "fully autonomous" flight or train ride. Have you?


The military has been doing fully autonomous flights with human passangers on board for at least a decade, or so I've been told by a Colonel. I have no way to verify but he's an honest guy I trust.

Regardless, there is no economic drive to replace engineers or pilots like there is with TNC and trucking. TNC alone is estimated to be a $14 _trillion_ annual market worldwide. Could we replace them? Absolutely.


----------



## tohunt4me

Novus Caesar said:


> Again, what happens when drivers vomit in the car or urinate over the seat? Who finds out? The next rider? What happens when morons enter the wrong address on the map or are too stupid? What happens when they are all drinking and smoking in the car. No one to tell them no. Who cleans up the trash out of the car? What happens when 12 year olds get in with no adult?
> 
> How long to find the passengers who are too stupid to find it and you can text back and forth or call to find them in the wrong area?


What happens when an angry displaced Uber driver crimps the coolant line to the Robocars " brain" and the cars logic circuitry overheats and goes insane ?
Should be interesting to watch . . .
" the car began jerky movement,accelerating and braking ,the suddenly it ran a stop sign and sped into a wall "!


----------



## Novus Caesar

Automated Uber cars will smell and look like public buses.


----------



## RamzFanz

Novus Caesar said:


> Again, what happens when drivers vomit in the car or urinate over the seat? Who finds out? The next rider? What happens when morons enter the wrong address on the map or are too stupid? What happens when they are all drinking and smoking in the car. No one to tell them no. Who cleans up the trash out of the car? What happens when 12 year olds get in with no adult?
> 
> How long to find the passengers who are too stupid to find it and you can text back and forth or call to find them in the wrong area?


Same as now, they pay a cleaning fee. This isn't an issue, it's a profit center. The cars could be engineered with swappable interiors so the car itself could be back on the road in minutes. Yes, a passenger could report a mess or internal cameras could easily and instantly detect any mess, damage, and left behind items with no human intervention. Smoke detectors could be used to prevent smoking. None of this is an actual issue.

12 year olds may very well be allowed to ride. Not sure why you think they wouldn't. They can legally ride with human drivers now in most places.

Passengers finding the cars will probably come down to designated pickup spots where needed. Parking spots will be far less in demand once SDC TNCs are common.

If the passenger fails to meet the car, they would probably get charged a fee and it moves on, just like now.



tohunt4me said:


> What happens when an angry displaced Uber driver crimps the coolant line to the Robocars " brain" and the cars logic circuitry overheats and goes insane ?
> Should be interesting to watch . . .
> " the car began jerky movement,accelerating and braking ,the suddenly it ran a stop sign and sped into a wall "!


Arrest, prosecution, and a civil suit I would think. Why would any vandalism be different than now?


----------



## tohunt4me

heynow321 said:


> The other big thing that these losers who are afraid of driving forget is that millions and millions of people _enjoy_ driving. You will never be able to create legislature that restricts our mobility. I don't care that 32k people die (how many of that total is due to their own fault?) which is .01% of the population.


Go read the Agenda 21 sustainability directives especially the guidelines to government regarding elimination of personal vehicle ownership. Followed by home ownership and land ownership . . .
It's been out since about 1971.
( it started with Kissinger's notes regarding food as a weapon and " "Useless Eaters".)
With Robotics EXPECT green councils of World Govt. to declare humans as the cause for " global warming" to a greater degree than fossil fuels and industry.
The Globalists are looking to cancel your ticket to the big blue spaceship.
They have decided they are better managers than God.
Do not lend consent.FREE WILL.
" It's a big club. And you're not in it "- George Carlin.


----------



## RamzFanz

moJohoJo said:


> It'll take 40 years before everything is hammered out .


Regulations? The feds have already issued guidelines, so no, not 40 years. Actual federal legislation may take awhile after the cars are already here, if ever, because it's just not necessary unless state regulations become over-burdensome but most won't. Most will just adopt the federal guidelines.



moJohoJo said:


> With as many drivers as Uber has pissed off i guarantee passengers ( drivers ) are going to leave human feces, glue and whatever they can on the seats, squash it on the windows and floorboard so nobody will take a ride in an driverless car ever again . Something Uber or anyone else hasn't thought of yet .


And many will be arrested, prosecuted, and have to pay for the damage. Sure, there will be some of this, but we're not all going to turn into moronic vandals overnight committing crimes that won't even benefit us.


----------



## tohunt4me

RamzFanz said:


> Regulations? The feds have already issued guidelines, so no, not 40 years. Actual federal legislation may take awhile after the cars are already here, if ever, because it's just not necessary unless state regulations become over-burdensome but most won't. Most will just adopt the federal guidelines.
> 
> And many will be arrested, prosecuted, and have to pay for the damage. Sure, there will be some of this, but we're not all going to turn into moronic vandals overnight committing crimes that won't even benefit us.


I Find your worship of Automation without regard to consequence quite disturbing and dangerous.
One should always look before leaping.


----------



## RamzFanz

DeplorableDonald said:


> I was listening to C-SPAN and they were airing a hearing on self-driving cars. The Volvo representative said the earliest self-driving cars are going to be used, and he said in limited use, is 2021.


Yes, for Volvo. They aren't frontrunners. Musk says next later this year, IIRC. Almost all frontrunners are saying 2018-2020 for introduction.



DeplorableDonald said:


> Having SDCs like in the movie Demolition Man is WAY off.


As far as SDC TNC's impacting us, it's probably 2-3 years away. They won't be perfect, go everywhere, drive fast, or even level 5 most likely, but they won't need to be. Odds are they will be electric glorified golf carts that stick to metro areas at first. Still, that's the bread and butter for many drivers.



tohunt4me said:


> I Find your worship of Automation without regard to consequence quite disturbing and dangerous.
> One should always look before leaping.


I've been around the block a few times Hunt4me. Every advance in technology comes with fear mongering and yet almost none of it comes true.


----------



## tohunt4me

Maven said:


> Some people always feel that they have a god-given right to do anything they damn-well please, regardless of how many others it hurts or kills. The larger society gives them labels and does what is necessary to protect itself. If a significant part of the population agrees with opposing views then a compromise is reached. That is called politics. A recent example of society compromising between two opposite viewpoints is smoking.
> 
> Recall how over many decades, the danger of secondhand smoke was the reason for the USA to enact laws that increasingly restricted the freedom of the decreasing minority of smokers to light up wherever and whenever they wished. A large majority of public support for the "right-to-smoke", supported by constant advertising, gradually changed to an even larger majority against smokers endangering them. Today smokers have been banned from both advertising and public places, yet allowed to spend their money to buy ridiculously high priced cigarettes, inflated by government taxes.


The same taxes and manipulations will be increasingly applied to the costs of vehicle ownership.
It is spelled out and written this way in the Agenda 21 " Sustainability Guidelines". It is a Global Manuel for the constriction of Personal Freedom. You really should read it.
This scheme has been in effect for decades. Read it and understand why middle class is being eliminated.
There will be a vehicle disposal tax/ fee along with the existing battery and tire disposal fees. They wish for a Global Carbon Tax fee,10% of which already funds Globalist Govt. Organization. Canada enacted it,Australia dropped it.
They will present the sale of your freedom to the yoke of Globalist slavery as the Politically Correct thing to do. Do not yield God given Free Will.


----------



## Novus Caesar

So will automated cars drive passengers 2 hours in one direct


RamzFanz said:


> 12 year olds may very well be allowed to ride. Not sure why you think they wouldn't. They can legally ride with human drivers now in most places.


*Uber* - Account holders must be 18 or over and CANNOT request a *ride* for *riders* under 18 unless accompanied by the account holder making the request. Lyft - Account holders must be 18 or over.


----------



## Bulls23

RamzFanz said:


> The military has been doing fully autonomous flights with human passangers on board for at least a decade, or so I've been told by a Colonel. I have no way to verify but he's an honest guy I trust.
> 
> Regardless, there is no economic drive to replace engineers or pilots like there is with TNC and trucking. TNC alone is estimated to be a $14 _trillion_ annual market worldwide. Could we replace them? Absolutely.


It's a hearsay. There is no documented fully autonomous flight or train trips recorded. Where did you get $14 trillion? Source please.
And lastly, do you know how much airline pilots make?


----------



## RamzFanz

UsedToBeAPartner said:


> No matter how soon the auto driving / driverless car comes along it will come to a quick end the first time a terrorist calls the empty car, loads the bomb on board and sets the destination. BOOM and he didn't even have to die doing it!


I find this hilarious. They could do that now in the US a hundred different ways and don't because there are actually very few terrorists who set off bombs. McVey used a Ryder truck. Are there still Ryder trucks?



Novus Caesar said:


> So will automated cars drive passengers 2 hours in one direct


Sure, when they become capable. At first they probably won't.



Novus Caesar said:


> *Uber* - Account holders must be 18 or over and CANNOT request a *ride* for *riders* under 18 unless accompanied by the account holder making the request. Lyft - Account holders must be 18 or over.


That's a policy, not a law in most markets. Conversely, most taxis and black car services are allowed to take unaccompanied minors. It's certainly a possibility SDCs will too.

And no, they don't need to be accompanied by the account holder, just an adult.


----------



## tohunt4me

The govt. " Progressively " Mills out rules and costly regulations which continually drive up the cost of vehicle ownership.
They will speak of " population control" out of one side of their mouths,while speaking of " saving lives" and safety out of the other side at once.
Taxing you with each " Progressive" step,the March to your slavery continues at your expense with your manufactured consent.


----------



## RamzFanz

Bulls23 said:


> It's a hearsay. There is no documented fully autonomous flight or train trips recorded. Where did you get $14 trillion? Source please.
> And lastly, do you know how much airline pilots make?


Yes, it's hearsay. Believe it or don't. The reality is a pilot of a modern Airbus only needs to fly for about 6 minutes each flight and that's because of regulations about takeoffs, not because the plane can't fly itself the entire trip. If there were an economic motivation, we could automate any vehicle or boat. There's just no rush to do it.

Several companies are claiming they will introduce self flying TNCs. One is saying this July. Airbus is saying they will test their prototype this year. They are already coming.

The $14T came from a news article about worldwide TNC. I posted it here. I don't see it now, but you can find it if you wish. Regardless, all estimates of the market size are in the many trillions and it's obvious.

Yes, last I heard an airline pilot for a major airline makes in the area of $100-$140 an hour while in the air. It's not significant. However, their days are numbered as are ours. The technology is just now maturing.


----------



## Jagent

I just got off the phone. I called my congressman and demanded legislation requiring all passengers in a SDC to wear a Snell rated helmet and fireproof shoes "If it just saves one life. ...."


----------



## Bulls23

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, it's hearsay. Believe it or don't. The reality is a pilot of a modern Airbus only needs to fly for about 6 minutes each flight and that's because of regulations about takeoffs, not because the plane can't fly itself the entire trip. If there were an economic motivation, we could automate any vehicle or boat. There's just no rush to do it.
> 
> From a news article about worldwide TNC. I don't see it now, but you can find it if you wish. Regardless, all estimates of the market size are in the many trillions and it's obvious.


What is obvious is that you sir have no idea what pilots do behind that door and why they get paid so much. Economic motivation? Last time I checked we don't live in North Korea.  Listen, you couldn't present your case. No data or valid argument based on facts. Thus, I rest mine.


----------



## tohunt4me

The self driving car is not your friend.


----------



## Jagent

I'm looking forward to the first driverless Indycar race. Should be a smashing success.


----------



## tohunt4me

He is being herded while shouting the infinite wisdom of the Shepard's dog.
You go be " one of a thousand points of light" to your Lucifarian Lightbearer. Be a good Servant to your G-7 masters,the " Beast with 7 Heads". The throne they prepare is not in the service of man.
Enjoy being subject of their Rule.
You should delve into the study of their beliefs. "322"


----------



## MissLucy

tohunt4me said:


> He is being herded while shouting the infinite wisdom of the Shepard's dog.
> You go be " one of a thousand points of light" to your Lucifarian Lightbearer. Be a good Servant to your G-7 masters,the " Beast with 7 Heads". The throne they prepare is not in the service of man.
> Enjoy being subject of their Rule.
> You should delve into the study of their beliefs.


Did someone mention "dogs". They're lazy, and all they do is sit on top of their doghouse, and fantasize about being the red baron!!! GRRRR


----------



## RamzFanz

Bulls23 said:


> What is obvious is that you sir have no idea what pilots do behind that door and why they get paid so much. Economic motivation? Last time I checked we don't live in North Korea.  Listen, you couldn't present your case. No data or valid argument based on facts. Thus, I rest mine.


Actually I do know. I've studied to be a pilot and have flown several models manufacturer approved simulators. My cousin is a pilot and runs a simulator center for a major airline. They need to do nothing in a modern jet that a computer couldn't do better and faster which is why they actually fly so little. You don't seem to realise almost all airline accidents are caused by the pilot, not the plane.

Yes, economic motivation. Why exactly do you think almost every major tech and auto company is racing towards SDCs and auto companies are changing their very business models over to becoming primarily SDC TNCs? For fun? What in the world does N. Korea and economic motivation have in common?


----------



## tohunt4me

MissLucy said:


> Did someone mention "dogs". They're lazy, and all they do is sit on top of their doghouse, and fantasize about being the red baron!!! GRRRR


But they jump when massah sez to
( even PROTEST on cue)
And they Point the camera in the direction they are told to.

Could turn out Baaaaad for the Sheople . . .
This funneling of rights smells of the slaughterhouse gate.


Jagent said:


> I'm looking forward to the first driverless Indycar race. Should be a smashing success.


Only Robots should be watching .


----------



## RamzFanz

Jagent said:


> I'm looking forward to the first driverless Indycar race. Should be a smashing success.


Not Indy, but they had a race 2 days ago.

One crashed. They aren't ready for 100MPH turns.


----------



## UsedToBeAPartner

RamzFanz said:


> I find this hilarious. They could do that now in the US a hundred different ways and don't because there are actually very few terrorists who set off bombs. McVey used a Ryder truck. Are there still Ryder trucks?


Few terrorists who set off bombs? Do you not read or listen to the news? It seems to happen nearly every day somewhere in the World. How narrow sited are you?


----------



## NorthNJLyftacular

MissLucy said:


> Did someone mention "dogs". They're lazy, and all they do is sit on top of their doghouse, and fantasize about being the red baron!!! GRRRR





Jagent said:


> I'm looking forward to the first driverless Indycar race. Should be a smashing success.


May the best algorithm win.


----------



## El Janitor

Well to quote Forest Gump,"Stupid is as stupid does."


----------



## iUBERdc

uberdriverfornow said:


> Unless a SDC can completely and totally drive itself it's self-defeating to ever own one of these since we know that is physically impossible from a realistic standpoint and we know nobody in their right mind will ever order one of these from an Uber. We really have nothing to worry about, as drivers.


Uber thinks owning a SDC with an employee in it will save them money over having a cheap slave labor owning their own car drive for them. What thick idiots.


----------



## RamzFanz

UsedToBeAPartner said:


> Few terrorists who set off bombs? Do you not read or listen to the news? It seems to happen nearly every day somewhere in the World. How narrow sited are you?


I clearly said US. I don't think Afghanistan or Syria are getting SDCs anytime soon.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Unless a SDC can completely and totally drive itself it's self-defeating to ever own one of these since we know that is physically impossible from a realistic standpoint and we know nobody in their right mind will ever order one of these from an Uber. We really have nothing to worry about, as drivers.


So, the _if god wanted us to fly he'd have given us wings_ argument?

No, the SDCs that will come first, fleets of TNCs, will not be able to go anywhere and do everything. Some may even need remote drivers to intervene on occasion. None of this will stop them from taking the low hanging fruit, our work.

25% of people say they would use SDCs today. That's 60,617,705 adults in the US. 50% are on the fence. There's more than enough market to open and prove themselves.


----------



## Coffeekeepsmedriving

So I can drink and drive again? Also will you have to get auto insurance?


----------



## Sean Streck

If it turns out Uber stole from Google, Uber in its current form is done. That doesn't mean its technology and assets won't be used by other companies, but I'm guessing a judgement would bankrupt the company (or at least make an IPO impossible) and put several people in prison for a long time.


----------



## tohunt4me

Well,in light of Recent news, autonomous automobiles may be in Litigation until 2021.



Sean Streck said:


> If it turns out Uber stole from Google, Uber in its current form is done. That doesn't mean its technology and assets won't be used by other companies, but I'm guessing a judgement would bankrupt the company (or at least make an IPO impossible) and put several people in prison for a long time.


Uber bought a company from an owner who allegedly stole from Google.
What did Uber steal ?
NOTHING !
UBER PAID OVER $500 MILLION .
GOOGLE CAN SUE THE PREVIOUS OWNER



Jagent said:


> I just got off the phone. I called my congressman and demanded legislation requiring all passengers in a SDC to wear a Snell rated helmet and fireproof shoes "If it just saves one life. ...."


Don't laugh !
I remember when the Govt. Coerced us into seat belt laws !
They threatened to with hold highways funds if States exercised their RIGHT to afford greater freedoms to the citizens than the Federal Govt.
It's how the Feds. Work. Extortion.
With holding funds.
The Fed. Govt. told us make seatbelt laws mandatory,or they would legislate costly safety equipment in cars such as passive seatbelt systems and air bags.
States passed the law.
We got costly airbags that explode and injure people now.
See how they operate ?
Helmets and built in roll cages with fuel cell gas tanks are next.


----------



## MissLucy

tohunt4me said:


> Well,in light of Recent news, autonomous automobiles may be in Litigation until 2021.
> 
> Uber bought a company from an owner who allegedly stole from Google.
> What did Uber steal ?
> NOTHING !
> UBER PAID OVER $500 MILLION .
> GOOGLE CAN SUE THE PREVIOUS OWNER
> 
> Don't laugh !
> I remember when the Govt. Coerced us into seat belt laws !
> They threatened to with hold highways funds if States exercised their RIGHT to afford greater freedoms to the citizens than the Federal Govt.
> It's how the Feds. Work. Extortion.
> With holding funds.
> The Fed. Govt. told us make seatbelt laws mandatory,or they would legislate costly safety equipment in cars such as passive seatbelt systems and air bags.
> States passed the law.
> We got costly airbags that explode and injure people now.
> See how they operate ?
> Helmets and built in roll cages with fuel cell gas tanks are next.


Uber paid over 500 million with investors money.


----------



## Fred Ex

Anytime I see an SDC at a stop sign, I'm just going. It has to blink first and everyone will learn to do the same. People behind one will go crazy cos it will never go, because everyone else is pushing in front of it. They will all have to to pass it, and it will cry.


----------



## heynow321

Fred Ex said:


> Anytime I see an SDC at a stop sign, I'm just going. It has to blink first and everyone will learn to do the same. People behind one will go crazy cos it will never go, because everyone else is pushing in front of it. They will all have to to pass it, and it will cry.


that's exactly what will happen. Watch any videos of "SDC"s currently. They drive like terrified 16 year olds. Coming to complete stops and taking forever to maneuver around a car partially blocking their lane, causing backups behind them.


----------



## Jermin8r89

heynow321 said:


> The other big thing that these losers who are afraid of driving forget is that millions and millions of people _enjoy_ driving. You will never be able to create legislature that restricts our mobility. I don't care that 32k people die (how many of that total is due to their own fault?) which is .01% of the population.


Also with all those injures off of stupid people work comes from that too.

The cause and effect goes much deeper. Theres alot of hospitals that have triage centers for auto accidents. Doctors ,nurses who all work for this could get layed off with limited amount of auto accidents.


----------



## Lando74

Maven said:


> I'm really trying to wake drivers up so they will get organized and fight for their rights. Rideshare drivers need to join forces with each other, Taxi drivers and Truckers to have a chance against the vast amount of money and power that wants autonomous vehicles to succeed, resulting in us all becoming displaced workers in the not too distant future.


Self driving cars are a pipe dream. They've been promising and showcasing this stuff for 50 years. Same with flying cars. The bottom line is a computer can only work with a finite set of variables. Even if it's a billion variables there's still a limit. The human brain has no limits on dealing with variables - it is creative, intuitive and predictive. There's simply no way to program a car to deal with the infinite combination of variables necessary to drive a car in every possible situation. This is why the "autonomous" cars still need drivers and always will. They can't get computers to understand speech with 100% accuracy, and people think they can do it with a car? There's some engineers getting rich convincing investors it's possible, that's about all.


----------



## heynow321

Exactly.


----------



## BallerX

uberdriverfornow said:


> Unless a SDC can completely and totally drive itself it's self-defeating to ever own one of these since we know that is physically impossible from a realistic standpoint and we know nobody in their right mind will ever order one of these from an Uber. We really have nothing to worry about, as drivers.


Famous last words about technological advances spoken throughout history...



Jermin8r89 said:


> Also with all those injures off of stupid people work comes from that too.
> 
> The cause and effect goes much deeper. Theres alot of hospitals that have triage centers for auto accidents. Doctors ,nurses who all work for this could get layed off with limited amount of auto accidents.


So let me get this straight... you want people to continue to get hurt, maimed and killed in car accidents so some people won't lose their jobs? Jesus. It's that kind of sick, twisted thinking that is one of the MAJOR cons of capitalism.


----------



## heynow321

BallerX said:


> Famous last words about technological advances spoken throughout history...
> 
> So let me get this straight... you want people to continue to get hurt, maimed and killed in car accidents so some people won't lose their jobs? Jesus. It's that kind of sick, twisted thinking that is one of the MAJOR cons of capitalism.


 Do you know how small the actual number of people getting hurt in this country is ? 32000 out of more than 300 million.

If we truly cared about saving lives we could get a much better return on our money by going after other types of disease or other social problems rather than wasting money on self driving cars


----------



## JqYork

I remember back in the early 90s Microsoft the new version of Windows would "learn" as it went. It would learn user preferences and habits and customize itself to do things it knows you're already going to do. It's now 2017 and I have yet to see a version of windows ever "learn" a damn thing!

I remember in the mid-1990s they said computers would soon be able to translate from one language to another and human translators would no longer be needed. Well, you can see the results of that great experiment (which they've actually been working on since the 1950s!), now in 2017 on translate.google.com. It does indeed translate into something resembling something we can understand. But it's still hugely flawed and inaccurate. It's good enough to impress people, but it's not good enough to use in everyday life.

And so are automated cars. They're good enough to impress but not good enough to use in real life. They have the same "last-mile" problem that all these other computer experiments have had. They get close to being fully self-driving, but they don't go all the way. They are not fully self-driving. They still need a human at the controls. And as long as they need a human, they aren't and won't be, self-driving cars. Currently, self-driving cars still need a LOT of human intervention. 

The people behind these cars seem to be under a utopian delusion that some day soon, ALL cars will be self-driving. Most of their predictions for improved safety are based on that hope. They say, 'as soon as all cars are self-driving then the roads will be much safer.' However, they are living in a dream world if they think all the hundreds of millions of human-driven cars on the road are just going to disappear overnight. 

Another huge obstacle that you'll never hear talked about in the media (because the media isn't that good about picking up on subtleties), is that in order for self-driving cars to work - they have to have the entire country completely mapped out. If there is a driveway that's not on the map - the car won't turn into that driveway. If there's a road or parking lot that aren't on the map - the car will absolutely not go onto that road or into that parking lot. 

Also, ALL traffic signals and signs will have to be added to the map. So every time a town or municipality adds a stop sign - they'll have to add it into a central computerized database. That includes temporary signs! A two-day construction project on a certain road that requires a yield sign to be put up... the city must add that yield sign to the database before they can put it up! And what do you think the chances are that that is going to be done 100% of the time without any mistakes ever? 

People who think this is going to make things much safer, I'm afraid are sadly mistaken. It's simply going to shift the mistakes from the drivers to the programmers and municipal data entry people and all the others who will be involved in making this system work. And they will be just as mistake prone as human drivers. Millions of people will be involved in making this system work and they will make mistakes just like anyone else. 

It's one thing to program a car to drive around a track. And it's one thing to program a car to drive around certain well-mapped roads in a city. But it's a whole other thing to put them out there in the "wild" and let them go wherever a human passenger wants to take them! They are not ready for that and will not be ready for that for a very long time... if ever. The obstacles in getting these cars from 90% to 100% are daunting. 

These cars are a lot farther off than the Utopian computer dreamers would have us believe.


----------



## Jermin8r89

JqYork said:


> I remember back in the early 90s Microsoft the new version of Windows would "learn" as it went. It would learn user preferences and habits and customize itself to do things it knows you're already going to do. It's now 2017 and I have yet to see a version of windows ever "learn" a damn thing!
> 
> I remember in the mid-1990s they said computers would soon be able to translate from one language to another and human translators would no longer be needed. Well, you can see the results of that great experiment (which they've actually been working on since the 1950s!), now in 2017 on translate.google.com. It does indeed translate into something resembling something we can understand. But it's still hugely flawed and inaccurate. It's good enough to impress people, but it's not good enough to use in everyday life.
> 
> And so are automated cars. They're good enough to impress but not good enough to use in real life. They have the same "last-mile" problem that all these other computer experiments have had. They get close to being fully self-driving, but they don't go all the way. They are not fully self-driving. They still need a human at the controls. And as long as they need a human, they aren't and won't be, self-driving cars. Currently, self-driving cars still need a LOT of human intervention.
> 
> The people behind these cars seem to be under a utopian delusion that some day soon, ALL cars will be self-driving. Most of their predictions for improved safety are based on that hope. They say, 'as soon as all cars are self-driving then the roads will be much safer.' However, they are living in a dream world if they think all the hundreds of millions of human-driven cars on the road are just going to disappear overnight.
> 
> Another huge obstacle that you'll never hear talked about in the media (because the media isn't that good about picking up on subtleties), is that in order for self-driving cars to work - they have to have the entire country completely mapped out. If there is a driveway that's not on the map - the car won't turn into that driveway. If there's a road or parking lot that aren't on the map - the car will absolutely not go onto that road or into that parking lot.
> 
> Also, ALL traffic signals and signs will have to be added to the map. So every time a town or municipality adds a stop sign - they'll have to add it into a central computerized database. That includes temporary signs! A two-day construction project on a certain road that requires a yield sign to be put up... the city must add that yield sign to the database before they can put it up! And what do you think the chances are that that is going to be done 100% of the time without any mistakes ever?
> 
> People who think this is going to make things much safer, I'm afraid are sadly mistaken. It's simply going to shift the mistakes from the drivers to the programmers and municipal data entry people and all the others who will be involved in making this system work. And they will be just as mistake prone as human drivers. Millions of people will be involved in making this system work and they will make mistakes just like anyone else.
> 
> It's one thing to program a car to drive around a track. And it's one thing to program a car to drive around certain well-mapped roads in a city. But it's a whole other thing to put them out there in the "wild" and let them go wherever a human passenger wants to take them! They are not ready for that and will not be ready for that for a very long time... if ever. The obstacles in getting these cars from 90% to 100% are daunting.
> 
> These cars are a lot farther off than the Utopian computer dreamers would have us believe.


Exactly! Also dont forget about weather. Snow,ice,flooding. Also they have to program each situation. How would it drive up snowy street or driveing down snowy hill. The vast amount just in weather alone is enormous


----------



## heynow321

Voice to text barely works as it is. Does anybody believe they could create software that could handle the infinite number of crazy situations that can arise on the roads ? Are you willing to trust your life with this software ?


----------



## Jermin8r89

heynow321 said:


> Voice to text barely works as it is. Does anybody believe they could create software that could handle the infinite number of crazy situations that can arise on the roads ? Are you willing to trust your life with this software ?


Nope. People gotta remember the aoftware is also man-made


----------



## Maven

I have the "ultimate" solution for each and every one of the many problematic situations that autonomous cars may have, which many people have pointed out (endlessly) in this thread. In fact, only a single solution is needed not only for whatever may be your personal pet problem, but all other possible situations where there is a passenger inside a disabled autonomous car. There will be a single big red button, simply labeled in all possible languages (including braille for the sight-impaired) "_*Do Not Touch!*_"

Drunks, yahoos, skeptics, haters and similarly impaired people, that qualify to receive a "Darwin Award" will inevitably press that button. They will immediately be sent to the "Great Autonomous Car in the Sky". Thus contributing to human evolution by selecting themselves out of the gene pool.


----------



## Kevin7889

Sdc's won't work!

We're not perfect, we're not God.
We can't create perfection because we're not perfect!

Smartphones still crash. Apps still crash

I believe sdc's will be hacked way more often by terrorists. 

Ex drivers will vandalize the exterior and interior.

People will have sex in sdc's. Who will clean up the bodily fluid?

People will do drugs and get the interior dirty

I can drive a car with 7 fingers (i really have ten, lol). Sdc's are going to need every component because it's technology. So what happens if the sdc hits a pothole and a computer chip falls out? The car stays still on a highway?


----------



## Bob Crane

People will buy autonomous cars then. Just because they make driverless cars doesn't mean everyone will take an uber. People like their freedom. People like their vehicles. It's an extension of their personality. I don't see people not buying cars and opting to depend on whatever ride share company is available at the time. 

Eventually there will be driverless cars. How it evolves and how people use them we will have to let time play it's roll.


----------



## LVN8V_BC43

Nothing but a major control arm of the wicked Leftist-rat's implementation of their Agenda 21/NWO. And if the Leftist-establishment NWO types think they'll pass laws requiring All to adapt to "save the planet from FUGAZZI climate change," well g/l with it...Unconstitutional first of all. 

Any person thinking this to be a 'good idea' is an absolute moron...."what happens when SHTF? Think that gov.-controlled/regulated auto-bot will get u where u need to go? HA!

They ever try to pass laws forcing folks out of their cars, get ready to repeat history yo...Civil War. 

Your car isn't just a mode of transportation, it's also a mode of Freedom.


----------



## Jermin8r89

LVN8V_BC43 said:


> Nothing but a major control arm of the wicked Leftist-rat's implementation of their Agenda 21/NWO. And if the Leftist-establishment NWO types think they'll pass laws requiring All to adapt to "save the planet from FUGAZZI climate change," well g/l with it...Unconstitutional first of all.
> 
> Any person thinking this to be a 'good idea' is an absolute moron...."what happens when SHTF? Think that gov.-controlled/regulated auto-bot will get u where u need to go? HA!
> 
> They ever try to pass laws forcing folks out of their cars, get ready to repeat history yo...Civil War.
> 
> Your car isn't just a mode of transportation, it's also a mode of Freedom.


Excatly true! Its identical to those climate change cry babies. If you gonna be a spokeperson for climate change then be in an apartment with no a/c and no vehical. All these powerful people use jets expensive cars and enormous houses.

Damn hypocrits!



Maven said:


> I have the "ultimate" solution for each and every one of the many problematic situations that autonomous cars may have, which many people have pointed out (endlessly) in this thread. In fact, only a single solution is needed not only for whatever may be your personal pet problem, but all other possible situations where there is a passenger inside a disabled autonomous car. There will be a single big red button, simply labeled in all possible languages (including braille for the sight-impaired) "_*Do Not Touch!*_"
> 
> Drunks, yahoos, skeptics, haters and similarly impaired people, that qualify to receive a "Darwin Award" will inevitably press that button. They will immediately be sent to the "Great Autonomous Car in the Sky". Thus contributing to human evolution by selecting themselves out of the gene pool.


How bout the best way is i have a car i want to get from point A to point B and if you stupid enough to be intoxicated or you cant drive you will be resposable for your actions. If you scared of stupid people well im sorry to say they everywhere and this is life deal with it or go live with mommy and daddy


----------



## uberdriverfornow

What kind of idiot buys a car that drives itself ? I guess an idiot that has a death wish.


----------



## LVN8V_BC43

uberdriverfornow said:


> What kind of idiot buys a car that drives itself ? I guess an idiot that has a death wish.


An indoctrinated Leftist-rat, that's who....a Fool....only beta males in skinny jeans with their backpacks & thief masks & their bff mean-faced clipped hair women.....all in the back seat hollerin' their 'auto-bot' chants down the road...."no Trump!...we created the KKK, & are the Fascists in USA!....no Trump!....no....blah blah."


----------



## Maven

uberdriverfornow said:


> What kind of idiot buys a car that drives itself ? I guess an idiot that has a death wish.


Same kind of idiot that rides in an operator-less elevator.


LVN8V_BC43 said:


> An indoctrinated Leftist-rat, that's who....a Fool....only beta males in skinny jeans with their backpacks & thief masks & their bff mean-faced clipped hair women.....all in the back seat hollerin' their 'auto-bot' chants down the road...."no Trump!...we created the KKK, & are the Fascists in USA!....no Trump!....no....blah blah."


ROLFLOL. Thank you for your somewhat comprehensible if unoriginal trollish rant. The "New World Order", greatly appreciates the effort, convincing average folks they are more rational than you.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Maven said:


> Same kind of idiot that rides in an operator-less elevator.
> 
> ROLFLOL. Thank you for your somewhat comprehensible if unoriginal trollish rant. The "New World Order", greatly appreciates the effort, convincing average folks they are more rational than you.


So is there no New World Order? So there is no such thing as centralizeing everything into world government?

Why is there a european union? Isnt that where world leaders come together and talk world wide "problems". Even though its more like makeing things better for them


----------



## Maven

Jermin8r89 said:


> So is there no New World Order? So there is no such thing as centralizeing everything into world government?


I know the "New World Order" is one of your favorite topics. If you read my statement carefully, you may realize that it implies the "New World Order" does exist. In fact, the "New World Order" has a long, proud and very public history. Republican President George H. W. Bush gave a famous and well-received speech on January 29, 1991 before a joint session of Congress proclaiming that post-cold-war America would create the "New World Order". One of the first and most well-known Western uses of the term was in President Woodrow Wilson's January 8, 1918 speech. Which of those is your favorite?



Jermin8r89 said:


> Why is there a european union? Isnt that where world leaders come together and talk world wide "problems". Even though its more like makeing things better for them


To answer your question, "Why is there a European union?" You should Google, "Why is there a European union? The resulting links fill the page.


----------



## Jermin8r89

I havent heard his speech ill have to find it. One of the most compeling of New World Order was JFK assination. Did you hear how hes speech (could of) got him killed. Wanted to do an excutive order to shut down federal reserve. Good stuff

I know why there is an EU. Noone voted to get in. Brexit broke out in england now EU keeps threatening europe to stay in it after they voted to get out.EU also shouldnt have there own army as their not a country. That right there shouldnt happen as its a higherarchy in the government system.

Ive read your stuff in couple different places. Im trying to figure out what your point of veiw is as you seem libaral but also realist. Do you want robots and buisnesses to rule the world or you just able to accept whats to come?


----------



## Maven

Jermin8r89 said:


> I havent heard his speech ill have to find it. One of the most compeling of New World Order was JFK assination. Did you hear how hes speech (could of) got him killed. Wanted to do an excutive order to shut down federal reserve. Good stuff


Please provide a reference or at least a date for this JFK speech that may or may not have gotten him killed.

There is a structurally adversarial relationship between the President and the Fed. One controls fiscal policy and the other monetary policy. They have different goals that often conflict. Many Presidents of both parties have called for restricting the authority of the Fed. I consider the Fed to be part of the system of checks and balances within the Federal government.



Jermin8r89 said:


> I know why there is an EU. Noone voted to get in. Brexit broke out in england now EU keeps threatening europe to stay in it after they voted to get out.EU also shouldnt have there own army as their not a country. That right there shouldnt happen as its a higherarchy in the government system.


The EU remains (mostly) democratic, proven by the Brexit result. Of course, there are messy political arguments that are typical of most democracies. It will be fun to see how it turns out.



Jermin8r89 said:


> Ive read your stuff in couple different places. Im trying to figure out what your point of veiw is as you seem libaral but also realist.


I am a rare breed today, able to appreciate both the logic and the hypocracy of liberals and conservatives alike. I consider myself an independent and a realist. However, due to my current economic circumstances (Hint: why would anyone rich drive for Uber?), I may tilt slightly to the liberal side, while being aware of the recent history of liberal policy failures. By contrast, regardless of their rhetoric, Historically, Republican legislation rarely helps the less affluent unless there's an even bigger benefit for the more affluent. I do not see any reason to believe that the Trump administration will be any different. With few exceptions, Trump has surrounded himself with traditional, big business, rich, establishment Republicans, doing the same things that Republicans have always done.



Jermin8r89 said:


> Do you want robots and buisnesses to rule the world or you just able to accept whats to come?


"Want" is irrelevant. I believe that the historic society-wide trend towards increased automation is inevitable. The result will be gigantic upheavals in most aspects of the economy and society. We can manage them, but not prevent them. The implementation of Autonomous vehicles is a question of "when" not "if". Any contrary argument is mere "wishful thinking".


----------



## RamzFanz

Coffeekeepsmedriving said:


> Also will you have to get auto insurance?


Maybe not. Tesla is thinking of including it for free. Most of these at first will be TNCs with their own insurance or self insured by the corporation.



Sean Streck said:


> If it turns out Uber stole from Google, Uber in its current form is done.


No one is saying Uber stole from Google. The incident happened long before Uber was involved.



Lando74 said:


> Self driving cars are a pipe dream.


Swing and a miss! They're already on public roads live carrying passangers with no driver controls.



Lando74 said:


> They've been promising and showcasing this stuff for 50 years.


Actually, they've been trying for almost 100. You can read about it in my blog. We are now in the end game.



Lando74 said:


> Same with flying cars.


They debut in Dubai this July.



Lando74 said:


> The bottom line is a computer can only work with a finite set of variables. Even if it's a billion variables there's still a limit. The human brain has no limits on dealing with variables - it is creative, intuitive and predictive. There's simply no way to program a car to deal with the infinite combination of variables necessary to drive a car in every possible situation.


Trillions a second actually. The human brain has zero chance of dealing with anywhere near as many variables as these systems. They are deep learning so they don't need programing for every situation. They figure it out, learn from it, and teach all of the rest of the fleet.



Lando74 said:


> This is why the "autonomous" cars still need drivers and always will. They can't get computers to understand speech with 100% accuracy, and people think they can do it with a car? There's some engineers getting rich convincing investors it's possible, that's about all.


Some engineers? Try almost every major auto company and almost every major tech company in the world. But I'm sure you're right, it's all a scam.

Microsoft just bought Mobileye (a self driving car technology company) for $15B. Microsoft must have been fooled. And Apple. And Google. What do they know?



heynow321 said:


> Do you know how small the actual number of people getting hurt in this country is ? 32000 out of more than 300 million.


Yes, _because of technology_, we've reduced deaths. We're good at preventing deaths. What you're missing in your numbers are the 3,000,000 injured, 2,000,000 permanently.



JqYork said:


> And so are automated cars. They're good enough to impress but not good enough to use in real life. They have the same "last-mile" problem that all these other computer experiments have had. They get close to being fully self-driving, but they don't go all the way. They are not fully self-driving. They still need a human at the controls. And as long as they need a human, they aren't and won't be, self-driving cars. Currently, self-driving cars still need a LOT of human intervention.


So we don't have airplanes? Or are they perfect?

I can't tell you where they are currently, but in 2015 Google went 7 months without needing a driver to intervene. Is that what you mean by a LOT?

The Netherlands put their first self-driving car on the road carrying passangers last May.



JqYork said:


> Another huge obstacle that you'll never hear talked about in the media (because the media isn't that good about picking up on subtleties), is that in order for self-driving cars to work - they have to have the entire country completely mapped out. If there is a driveway that's not on the map - the car won't turn into that driveway. If there's a road or parking lot that aren't on the map - the car will absolutely not go onto that road or into that parking lot.


You're confusing self-driving with autonomous. Self-driving is right around the corner. Autonomous is a ways away. This doesn't really help us Uber drivers much. It's in my blog.



JqYork said:


> Also, ALL traffic signals and signs will have to be added to the map. So every time a town or municipality adds a stop sign - they'll have to add it into a central computerized database. That includes temporary signs! A two-day construction project on a certain road that requires a yield sign to be put up... the city must add that yield sign to the database before they can put it up! And what do you think the chances are that that is going to be done 100% of the time without any mistakes ever?


Again, not so. The cars can map on their own and detect and add traffic lights and signs. Once a car has it mapped, all the cars in its fleet will also have it mapped. Same with construction zones and whatnot. The cars being developed do not need any infrastructure changes or centralised system. They are self contained.



JqYork said:


> People who think this is going to make things much safer, I'm afraid are sadly mistaken. It's simply going to shift the mistakes from the drivers to the programmers and municipal data entry people and all the others who will be involved in making this system work. And they will be just as mistake prone as human drivers. Millions of people will be involved in making this system work and they will make mistakes just like anyone else.


Unless something changes, there will be no centralised system and the car will not rely on people other than the programmers. They may have remote drivers who can jump in at first in some systems for outlier situations.

Given their ability to focus and their far superior senses over humans, it's all but certain they will be far safer.



JqYork said:


> It's one thing to program a car to drive around a track. And it's one thing to program a car to drive around certain well-mapped roads in a city. But it's a whole other thing to put them out there in the "wild" and let them go wherever a human passenger wants to take them! They are not ready for that and will not be ready for that for a very long time... if ever. The obstacles in getting these cars from 90% to 100% are daunting.


Yep. Automation, level 5, is some years away for sure. They don't need level 5 to start taking our jobs. Level 3.5 - 4 will do.



JqYork said:


> These cars are a lot farther off than the Utopian computer dreamers would have us believe.


1-3 years, says almost everyone involved, and that's a lot of experts.



heynow321 said:


> Voice to text barely works as it is. Does anybody believe they could create software that could handle the infinite number of crazy situations that can arise on the roads ? Are you willing to trust your life with this software ?


Yes, and yes. Once they are proven safer, they will be safer. It's the way it works.



Kevin7889 said:


> Sdc's won't work!


They already do and are in service.



Kevin7889 said:


> We're not perfect, we're not God.
> We can't create perfection because we're not perfect!


Which is why we don't have airplanes, because they aren't perfect. We should all stick to walking.



Kevin7889 said:


> I believe sdc's will be hacked way more often by terrorists.


Ok. Terrorists. Because they hack our systems now.



Kevin7889 said:


> People will have sex in sdc's. Who will clean up the bodily fluid?


Whoever gets paid to by the passenger who did it, same as now.



Kevin7889 said:


> I can drive a car with 7 fingers (i really have ten, lol). Sdc's are going to need every component because it's technology. So what happens if the sdc hits a pothole and a computer chip falls out? The car stays still on a highway?


Robust redundancy. Every sensor and processor in Waymo's car, for example, has redundancy. And no, they don't need every component to drive or to get off the road safely. It will be imperfect, but what isn't?


----------



## Jermin8r89

Maven said:


> lease provide a reference or at least a date for this JFK speech that may or may not have gotten him killed


April of 1961 I dont remember the exact date but it was at American Newspaper Publishers Association



Maven said:


> Please provide a reference or at least a date for this JFK speech that may or may not have gotten him killed.
> 
> There is a structurally adversarial relationship between the President and the Fed. One controls fiscal policy and the other monetary policy. They have different goals that often conflict. Many Presidents of both parties have called for restricting the authority of the Fed. I consider the Fed to be part of the system of checks and balances within the Federal government.
> 
> The EU remains (mostly) democratic, proven by the Brexit result. Of course, there are messy political arguments that are typical of most democracies. It will be fun to see how it turns out.
> 
> I am a rare breed today, able to appreciate both the logic and the hypocracy of liberals and conservatives alike. I consider myself an independent and a realist. However, due to my current economic circumstances (Hint: why would anyone rich drive for Uber?), I may tilt slightly to the liberal side, while being aware of the recent history of liberal policy failures. By contrast, regardless of their rhetoric, Republican legislation historically rarely helps the less affluent unless there's an even bigger benefit for the more affluent. I do not see any reason to believe that the Trump administration will be any different. With few exceptions, Trump has surrounded himself with traditional, big business, rich, establishment Republicans, doing the same things that Republicans have always done.


Im in same boat. When i was homeless i was more democratic now that i have job in trucking im republic. Im indipend as im going for which ever person is better for me. Once a politian always a politian


----------



## Jermin8r89

RamzFanz said:


> Maybe not. Tesla is thinking of including it for free. Most of these at first will be TNCs with their own insurance or self insured by the corporation.
> 
> No one is saying Uber stole from Google. The incident happened long before Uber was involved.
> 
> Swing and a miss! They're already on public roads live carrying passangers with no driver controls.
> 
> Actually, they've been trying for almost 100. You can read about it in my blog. We are now in the end game.
> 
> They debut in Dubai this July.
> 
> Trillions a second actually. The human brain has zero chance of dealing with anywhere near as many variables as these systems. They are deep learning so they don't need programing for every situation. They figure it out, learn from it, and teach all of the rest of the fleet.
> 
> Some engineers? Try almost every major auto company and almost every major tech company in the world. But I'm sure you're right, it's all a scam.
> 
> Microsoft just bought Mobileye (a self driving car technology company) for $15B. Microsoft must have been fooled. And Apple. And Google. What do they know?
> 
> Yes, _because of technology_, we've reduced deaths. We're good at preventing deaths. What you're missing in your numbers are the 3,000,000 injured, 2,000,000 permanently.
> 
> So we don't have airplanes? Or are they perfect?
> 
> I can't tell you where they are currently, but in 2015 Google went 7 months without needing a driver to intervene. Is that what you mean by a LOT?
> 
> The Netherlands put their first self-driving car on the road carrying passangers last May.
> 
> You're confusing self-driving with autonomous. Self-driving is right around the corner. Autonomous is a ways away. This doesn't really help us Uber drivers much. It's in my blog.
> 
> Again, not so. The cars can map on their own and detect and add traffic lights and signs. Once a car has it mapped, all the cars in its fleet will also have it mapped. Same with construction zones and whatnot. The cars being developed do not need any infrastructure changes or centralised system. They are self contained.
> 
> Unless something changes, there will be no centralised system and the car will not rely on people other than the programmers. They may have remote drivers who can jump in at first in some systems for outlier situations.
> 
> Given their ability to focus and their far superior senses over humans, it's all but certain they will be far safer.
> 
> Yep. Automation, level 5, is some years away for sure. They don't need level 5 to start taking our jobs. Level 3.5 - 4 will do.
> 
> 1-3 years, says almost everyone involved, and that's a lot of experts.
> 
> Yes, and yes. Once they are proven safer, they will be safer. It's the way it works.
> 
> They already do and are in service.
> 
> Which is why we don't have airplanes, because they aren't perfect. We should all stick to walking.
> 
> Ok. Terrorists. Because they hack our systems now.
> 
> Whoever gets paid to by the passenger who did it, same as now.
> 
> Robust redundancy. Every sensor and processor in Waymo's car, for example, has redundancy. And no, they don't need every component to drive or to get off the road safely. It will be imperfect, but what isn't?


Are you going transhumanism on us? When you do become cyborg i wana see a robot do the truffle dance. Haha


----------



## Maven

Jermin8r89 said:


> Are you going transhumanism on us? When you do become cyborg i wana see a robot do the truffle dance. Haha


That sounds like a challenge to me! 

Anyone who wants to know how all the coming automation turns out in the end should read a short story by one of the most prolific science fiction writers of all time, Isaac Asimov. Google: multivax last question


----------



## RamzFanz

Jermin8r89 said:


> Are you going transhumanism on us? When you do become cyborg i wana see a robot do the truffle dance. Haha


I like you, I just never know how to answer you. Don't ever change.


----------



## LVN8V_BC43

Jermin8r89 said:


> So is there no New World Order? So there is no such thing as centralizeing everything into world government?
> 
> Why is there a european union? Isnt that where world leaders come together and talk world wide "problems". Even though its more like makeing things better for them


Anyone denying the NWO & it's overreaching power is an indoctrinated shmuck...they think they're smarter than most people & always resort to labeling any against them/their belief system as "trolls/trolling/etc."


----------



## Maven

Jermin8r89 said:


> Are you going transhumanism on us? When you do become cyborg i wana see a robot do the truffle dance. Haha





LVN8V_BC43 said:


> Anyone denying the NWO & it's overreaching power is an indoctrinated shmuck...they think they're smarter than most people & always resort to labeling any against them/their belief system as "trolls/trolling/etc."


Interesting to see anyone so convinced of their own rectitude that all arguments to the contrary are ridiculed. Is Transhumanism part of the NWO conspiracy? I'd like to see your reaction in https://uberpeople.net/threads/transhumanism.150174/


----------

