# Self driving cars to hit the streets in 2017 promises Volvo



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motor...ar-in-customers--hands-by-2017-202033465.html

If self-driving technology has seemed more like science fiction than fact so far, it's because of not just the limits of the software, but the legal rules as well. All trials of self-driving vehicles in the United States so far have involved a handful of corporate employees in just a few states, and even then the results look like a new form of cruise control rather than something that could change how we live.

Today, Volvo announced a real, on-the-streets test of 100 of its self-driving cars - a first in the world, and one that will put regular owners in the seats of what it says are production-ready autonomous vehicles, by 2017.

Doing so requires far more than the 28 cameras, sensors and lasers Volvo says its system uses, along with a complex set of software rules, to tackle nearly 100 percent of all driving situations. It also required the approval of lawmakers in Sweden and Gotheberg, the city which will allow owners of these Volvos to legally cruise the streets while reading or chatting away on their phones from behind the wheel.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motor...ar-in-customers--hands-by-2017-202033465.html
> 
> Doing so requires far more than the 28 cameras, sensors and lasers Volvo says its system uses, along with a complex set of software rules, to tackle nearly 100 percent of all driving situations.l.


nearly 100% ? cars arent human
im sure i can come up with situations that require human input/decision while driving
like how can it tell if its being pulled over by a real cop or a fake cop trying to carjack/rob you?


----------



## Simon (Jan 4, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> nearly 100% ? cars arent human
> im sure i can come up with situations that require human input/decision while driving
> like how can it tell if its being pulled over by a real cop or a fake cop trying to carjack/rob you?


How would you tell... or most people. Probably a guess.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Simon said:


> How would you tell... or most people. Probably a guess.


pretty easy to tell a marked car from somebody with a cop flashing light app putting his phone in the dash
imagine, if car is program to stop for any flashing lights behind them,u know how easy it could be to rob folks?
say someone robs store, orders an uber. cop pulls it over. how does car know its driving a crook? when will the driverless car know its free to leave????
clearly they can't be near 100% completion of all siutuations, because the number of situations is INFINITE


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> pretty easy to tell a marked car from somebody with a cop flashing light app putting his phone in the dash
> imagine, if car is program to stop for any flashing lights behind them,u know how easy it could be to rob folks?
> say someone robs store, orders an uber. cop pulls it over. how does car know its driving a crook? when will the driverless car know its free to leave????
> clearly they can't be near 100% completion of all siutuations, because the number of situations is INFINITE


You have a secure signal from the cop car that the tells the self driving car to pull off.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> You have a secure signal from the cop car that the tells the self driving car to pull off.


so we gonna have to make special communication for cops?
what about road crews, or fake road crews telling you to drive into a ditch?
again, the number of situations is infinite,not sure how they can say they can solve nearly 100%


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> so we gonna have to make special communication for cops?
> what about road crews, or fake road crews telling you to drive into a ditch?
> again, the number of situations is infinite,not sure how they can say they can solve nearly 100%


You just like throwing up roadblocks. These are all solvable with existing technologies. The car has 28 cameras and other sensors that would prevent it from driving in a ditch. The first versions will be limited but eventually, full self driving is unavoidable.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> You just like throwing up roadblocks. These are all solvable with existing technologies. The car has 28 cameras and other sensors that would prevent it from driving in a ditch. The first versions will be limited but eventually, full self driving is unavoidable.


so you believe a computer can handle any real life situation thrown at it? reallY?


----------



## Simon (Jan 4, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> so you believe a computer can handle any real life situation thrown at it? reallY?


Maybe not all but more than a human would. Computers will always do better than a human in this situation. That's why automatic transmission cars are more fuel efficient than stick shifts Nowadays.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Simon said:


> Maybe not all but more than a human would. Computers will always do better than a human in this situation. That's why automatic transmission cars are more fuel efficient than stick shifts Nowadays.


so you believe a self driving car can handle nearly 100% of the infinite different situations it could possibly encounter then right?

computer does good with known variables, i could throw several unknown variable situations at a self driving car that I know it cant handle

it will be fine if you just drive it in a straight line,but getting from A to B is never always as simple as that.

and if they use them to do Uber, i want to see how a computer handles picking up pax at addresses and pings that they are not at. I always need to communicate with the pax to find out where they are at when all the info Uber gives in the ping doesnt get me to them...


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

some info on google's cars:

"
Pedestrians are detected simply as moving, column-shaped blurs of pixels—meaning, Urmson agrees, that the car wouldn’t be able to spot a police officer at the side of the road frantically waving for traffic to stop.

The car’s sensors can’t tell if a road obstacle is a rock or a crumpled piece of paper, so the car will try to drive around either. Urmson also says the car can’t detect potholes or spot an uncovered manhole if it isn’t coned off."


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> so you believe a self driving car can handle nearly 100% of the infinite different situations it could possibly encounter then right?
> 
> computer does good with known variables, i could throw several unknown variable situations at a self driving car that I know it cant handle
> 
> ...


I am 100% with you on this matter,
Google has already commented that it's self driving cars can only deal with situations they are preprogrammed to deal with, I don't see self driving cars working 100% without human intervention until we have true AI computer technology,

We don't have AI, not even close to it.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

painfreepc said:


> I am 100% with you on this matter,
> Google has already commented that it's self driving cars can only deal with situations they are preprogrammed to deal with, I don't see self driving cars working 100% without human intervention until we have true AI computer technology,
> 
> We don't have AI, not even close to it.


agreed
i think you can put them on the streets today though with a co-pilot(human sitting in the next seat that can take over and handle non-normal situations,but that makes it not driverless....)


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> agreed
> i think you can put them on the streets today though with a co-pilot(human sitting in the next seat that can take over and handle non-normal situations,but that makes it not driverless....)


You could have one person monitoring may be up to a dozen cars from a remote location, so when a driverless car has an accident, they can still say it was human error.


----------



## Simon (Jan 4, 2015)

Audi just sent a car from California to Las Vegas. 

And I did not day 100%.. the changeover will happen irregardless of your thoughts on the subject.


----------



## UberXtraordinary (Dec 13, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> nearly 100% ? cars arent human
> im sure i can come up with situations that require human input/decision while driving
> like how can it tell if its being pulled over by a real cop or a fake cop trying to carjack/rob you?


There's no getting around the laws of physics. A deer jumps out in front of a car going 50 on a freeway will cause an accident whether it's a human driver or not. The advantage of the autonomous car is that it can see 360 degrees at the same time, in fog, at night, the distance of two football fields, and never gets distracted. But yeah, unexpected things happen now, and will happen then.

It would make since that with autonomous cars, cops can get on with the crime fighting and focus less on harassing peaceful people on the roads.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Simon said:


> Audi just sent a car from California to Las Vegas.
> 
> And I did not day 100%.. the changeover will happen irregardless of your thoughts on the subject.


sure it will happen
just not 2017 will you be seeing driverless cars in your neighborhood


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

UberXtraordinary said:


> There's no getting around the laws of physics. A deer jumps out in front of a car going 50 on a freeway will cause an accident whether it's a human driver or not. The advantage of the autonomous car is that it can see 360 degrees at the same time, in fog, at night, the distance of two football fields, and never gets distracted. But yeah, unexpected things happen now, and will happen then.
> 
> It would make since that with autonomous cars, cops can get on with the crime fighting and focus less on harassing peaceful people on the roads.


So will the driverless car hard break for a fox, on a narrow two lane highway, hitting a tree or telephone pole or will it do what a human would do, run the fox over.


----------



## Simon (Jan 4, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> sure it will happen
> just not 2017 will you be seeing driverless cars in your neighborhood


Oh no... but partial driverless cars exist now. Caddilac is coming out with Super Cruise next year.


----------



## Simon (Jan 4, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> So will the driverless car hard break for a fox, on a narrow two lane highway, hitting a tree or telephone pole or will it do what a human would do, run the fox over.


It would hard BRAKE to avoid the obstacle.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Simon said:


> It would hard BRAKE to avoid the obstacle.


what happens when a deer jumps out while its doing 50mph, car hard brakes, but deer still smashes the front end of the car damaging sensors. Will it just stop in the highway? will it still be able to pull to the side of the road? will it know where the side of the road is at with deer damaged sensors? Driverless car has to figure all of this out

and even though a driverless car may not make human mistakes causing accidents, it does have to worry about other humans driving cars that can cause it accidents

it will be easier though with a owner and his driverless car
but to use it for Uber, and deal with strangers who realize no human is in the car to make them act a certain way, poses many liabilities to the upkeep of the car. Mainly vandalism


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> pretty easy to tell a marked car from somebody with a cop flashing light app putting his phone in the dash
> imagine, if car is program to stop for any flashing lights behind them,u know how easy it could be to rob folks?
> say someone robs store, orders an uber. cop pulls it over. how does car know its driving a crook? when will the driverless car know its free to leave????
> clearly they can't be near 100% completion of all siutuations, because the number of situations is INFINITE


^^^
If nobody is in the car, the car will automatically contact a CSR who will press a button on the keyboard that starts a message to the cop with: "Thank you for reaching out!".


----------



## puber (Aug 31, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> so you believe a self driving car can handle nearly 100% of the infinite different situations it could possibly encounter then right?
> 
> computer does good with known variables, i could throw several unknown variable situations at a self driving car that I know it cant handle
> 
> ...


I call may be 1% of riders. Not because i can't find the pick up location, but because my car is invisible to them.
And another 10% are incoming calls from controlling assholes


----------



## TidyVet (Dec 27, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> what happens when a deer jumps out while its doing 50mph, car hard brakes, but deer still smashes the front end of the car damaging sensors. Will it just stop in the highway? will it still be able to pull to the side of the road? will it know where the side of the road is at with deer damaged sensors? Driverless car has to figure all of this out
> 
> and even though a driverless car may not make human mistakes causing accidents, it does have to worry about other humans driving cars that can cause it accidents
> 
> ...


Driverless cars will happen. Stop fighting it. Everything will be out-sourced.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Nobody said it wouldn't happen, smh


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

It will unhappen, as fast as happens,
we are no where near ready for this.

Reminds me of an sttng episode:
Picard claims that they are ready to confront the unknown,
After the Q tells captain Picard humanity is not ready for whats out their.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

You are just way behind the technologies in this area. Police and other authorized people could easily safely divert or stop traffic with a single secure signal. Construction zones could also be easily planned for. The fact that a specific car that isn't even on the road can't spot a pot hole or tell the difference between a rock and a piece of paper doesn't mean it can't be done. It can easily be done.

Most people would think this is impossible:






But it's not. It's just a matter of having the right data from the right sensors. Cars have actual been able to drive themselves for decades in limited ways. It's coming and it's coming soon.

Not only will we have self driving cars soon, we will have self flying vehicles.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> You are just way behind the technologies in this area. Police and other authorized people could easily safely divert or stop traffic with a single secure signal. Construction zones could also be easily planned for. The fact that a specific car that isn't even on the road can't spot a pot hole or tell the difference between a rock and a piece of paper doesn't mean it can't be done. It can easily be done.
> 
> Most people would think this is impossible:
> 
> ...


i dont think anybody denied driverless cars will happen
we are only debating the time
especially this year 2017 date, smh
and as you said, cars have been able to drive themselves for decade in limited ways. again, nobody disputes this. & nobody disputes the technology will get better with time. however, your keyword there is "limited". my keyword is "driverless",meaning no human input at all. every decision in every possible infinite situation to be decided by a computer,just wont be normal in 2017. for uber to use them, many many may years past that.


----------



## UberXtraordinary (Dec 13, 2014)

painfreepc said:


> So will the driverless car hard break for a fox, on a narrow two lane highway, hitting a tree or telephone pole or will it do what a human would do, run the fox over.


Some systems use sonar + radar + day/night vision cameras, which can detect small soft objects, like a fox. It can also "see" in 360 degrees all at once through fog rain and darkness. The car would break to mitigate an accident. It can see the fox and the pole and the other cars on the road all at once, and calculate how best not to have a collision, and also avoid the fox if possible. Fortunately, foxes don't sue, if the car fails. It's the question most people seem hung up on right now. For the time being, and for the next several years, these systems will be treated as highly advance cruise control. The "driver" will need to keep one eye on how the car is driving at all times, and will be responsible for the car like one would be if having crashed while using cruise control. Eventually, the question of liability will diminish as these systems prove themselves consistently safer than human drivers by a factor of 100 statistically, over-all.


----------



## UberXtraordinary (Dec 13, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> You are just way behind the technologies in this area. Police and other authorized people could easily safely divert or stop traffic with a single secure signal. Construction zones could also be easily planned for. The fact that a specific car that isn't even on the road can't spot a pot hole or tell the difference between a rock and a piece of paper doesn't mean it can't be done. It can easily be done.
> 
> Most people would think this is impossible:
> 
> ...


Elon musk said that building a flying car is not too difficult, but to build one that is quiet and safe will be difficult. He said they may build a couple "prototypes" for fun, but not for market. That's dude's so baller. Will have his own private submarine car, and flying car. He really is Tony Stark.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> nearly 100% ? cars arent human
> im sure i can come up with situations that require human input/decision while driving
> like how can it tell if its being pulled over by a real cop or a fake cop trying to carjack/rob you?


Why would it be getting pulled over in the first place? It would not violate any traffic rules. And any equipment failures would have to be delt with before it would drive. Only reasons to pull over would be for the behavior of the passengers inside. Police would scan the cars barcode and from their MDT issue any tickets that would be mailed to the driver (like the do with FedEx trucks currently). Or they would issue a pull over command from the MDT and the car would pull over for them at the safest spot. But they better have a good reason for the stop because the cars data will prove no traffic infraction occurred. Imagine that an end to traffic citations. City going to have to make that money up somewhere else.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Walkersm said:


> Why would it be getting pulled over in the first place? It would not violate any traffic rules. And any equipment failures would have to be delt with before it would drive. Only reasons to pull over would be for the behavior of the passengers inside. Police would scan the cars barcode and from their MDT issue any tickets that would be mailed to the driver (like the do with FedEx trucks currently). Or they would issue a pull over command from the MDT and the car would pull over for them at the safest spot. But they better have a good reason for the stop because the cars data will prove no traffic infraction occurred. Imagine that an end to traffic citations. City going to have to make that money up somewhere else.


car will violate any rule not programmed to it by HUMANS
the computer itself might not make mistakes,but the input to it can
also, you say why would it be gettting pulled over? there are numerous reasons why a car could be pulled over. it may not break a law, but it may fit the decription of a wanted vechile. there's plenty of reasons why it might be pulled over, and a driverless car needs to know how to handle every one of those situations, just like a human would.....

and yeah, good reason to stop it, like police always have valid reasons to pull people over. theres plenty of court cases to contest that


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

Walkersm said:


> Why would it be getting pulled over in the first place? It would not violate any traffic rules. And any equipment failures would have to be delt with before it would drive. Only reasons to pull over would be for the behavior of the passengers inside. Police would scan the cars barcode and from their MDT issue any tickets that would be mailed to the driver (like the do with FedEx trucks currently). Or they would issue a pull over command from the MDT and the car would pull over for them at the safest spot. But they better have a good reason for the stop because the cars data will prove no traffic infraction occurred. Imagine that an end to traffic citations. City going to have to make that money up somewhere else.


So the robot car at at stop light sees it's about to be rear ended is not going to make quick right turn to keep from being rear ended because right turn on red is illegal,

So the robot car is not going to do 70 mph for a few seconds to pass the cars on its right to make the next freeway exit, it's just going to keep going till it gets a clear opening,

Car is never going to break any traffic law for any reason, even if you the human passenger is having a heart attack and needs the nearest emergency hospital as fast as possible.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

painfreepc said:


> So the robot car at at stop light sees it's about to be rear ended is not going to make quick right turn to keep from being rear ended because right turn on red is illegal.


its situations like these, where sometimes, doing something illegal, is okay to save injury and life
a driverless car needs to do whats BEST, not really always whats legal
even Google admitted that driverless cars doing the legal speed limit may not be the safest thing to do!!!!


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> i dont think anybody denied driverless cars will happen
> we are only debating the time
> especially this year 2017 date, smh
> and as you said, cars have been able to drive themselves for decade in limited ways. again, nobody disputes this. & nobody disputes the technology will get better with time. however, your keyword there is "limited". my keyword is "driverless",meaning no human input at all. every decision in every possible infinite situation to be decided by a computer,just wont be normal in 2017. for uber to use them, many many may years past that.


I see. Yes, Volvo isn't talking about driverless. Full driverless will take time mostly because of the speed of government to get out of the way.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

painfreepc said:


> So the robot car at at stop light sees it's about to be rear ended is not going to make quick right turn to keep from being rear ended because right turn on red is illegal.


Come on man?? Like a human could react that fast?

What it could do is recognize the collision and pretension the seat belts to prevent some injury.

But why would it get rear ended in the first place when there are all self driving cars on the road?

Unless you are talking about the small window of time where there will be self driving and people driven cars on the road. That wont last to long because as the insurance premiums go sky high for people driven cars (the pool of owners will shrink) only the richest of people will be able to afford to drive themselves. 
I am thinking Jay Leno might be the last hold out! LOL


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> car will violate any rule not programmed to it by HUMANS
> the computer itself might not make mistakes,but the input to it can
> also, you say why would it be gettting pulled over? there are numerous reasons why a car could be pulled over. it may not break a law, but it may fit the decription of a wanted vechile. there's plenty of reasons why it might be pulled over, and a driverless car needs to know how to handle every one of those situations, just like a human would.....
> 
> and yeah, good reason to stop it, like police always have valid reasons to pull people over. theres plenty of court cases to contest that


Well usually the valid reason to pull over some black guys that look suspicions is that they did not signal at least 100 feet before their right turn. Imagine the future where the data is brought into court and proven that there was no valid reason to pull them over and a nice civil rights case comes of that. Wont matter much though if stop and frisk becomes a national thing.

Anyway, yea I guess a wanted vehicle with criminals inside could be a situation. I am sure police are working on solutions to that as well. Can actually do it now with Gm cars and onstar (lock doors and slow down vehicle) they just do not seem to do it to often for some reason.


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

Walkersm said:


> Come on man?? Like a human could react that fast?
> 
> What it could do is recognize the collision and pretension the seat belts to prevent some injury.
> 
> ...


Who can do that?, are you joking,
all robot cars..really, you actually think all humans will give up driving.. you are in a dream world.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UberXtraordinary said:


> Elon musk said that building a flying car is not too difficult, but to build one that is quiet and safe will be difficult. He said they may build a couple "prototypes" for fun, but not for market. That's dude's so baller. Will have his own private submarine car, and flying car. He really is Tony Stark.


That dude is a mega-genus in my book. When he lands his first rocket and launches the Falcon Heavy this year, he will be surpassing every space agency in the world in rocket technology.

Building a safe flying vehicle, relatively speaking, would be easy if the government would set aside the airspace and all vehicles communicated with each other. I'm referring to one that transitions from flying to driving because you couldn't always fly everywhere. Quiet is more than achievable, it's already being done, but would it cheap enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Walkersm said:


> Well usually the valid reason to pull over some black guys that look suspicions is that they did not signal at least 100 feet before their right turn. Imagine the future where the data is brought into court and proven that there was no valid reason to pull them over and a nice civil rights case comes of that. Wont matter much though if stop and frisk becomes a national thing.
> 
> Anyway, yea I guess a wanted vehicle with criminals inside could be a situation. I am sure police are working on solutions to that as well. Can actually do it now with Gm cars and onstar (lock doors and slow down vehicle) they just do not seem to do it to often for some reason.


Computer may not "make mistakes"
But have you ever heard of computers glitching? or you believe all computers work perfectly?
it only take 1 glitch to turn into a million dollar lawsuit

I'm in DC
We have been in the news about computer controlled
the metro trains,at one point they were all computer driven. the person in the train only opened doors and called 911. but all movement was controlled by computers. ti should be easier since its all on tracks and trains can't go everywhere like cars can.Thus being controlled by computers instead of humans, no accidents should happen. but what happened???????????????????????????????????????? Computers ended up killing a few people in a train wrecked caused by computer and sensor malfunction(same way driverless cars need sensors)

they no longer let the computers run the trains because they dont trust the computers anymore
they make the humans run it ever since the deaths. imagine that, choosing humans over a computer?
glitches can happen!!!


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> That dude is a mega-genus in my book. When he lands his first rocket and launches the Falcon Heavy this year, he will be surpassing every space agency in the world in rocket technology.
> 
> Building a safe flying vehicle, relatively speaking, would be easy if the government would set aside the airspace and all vehicles communicated with each other. I'm referring to one that transitions from flying to driving because you couldn't always fly everywhere. Quiet is more than achievable, it's already being done, but would it cheap enough?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control


The FAA has a limit to how high you can fly without a pilot's license.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> Who can do that?, are you joking,
> all robot cars..really, you actually think all humans will give up driving.. you are in a dream world.


I could see that drivers could be forced out by insurance costs.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

painfreepc said:


> Who can do that?, are you joking,
> all robot cars..really, you actually think all humans will give up driving.. you are in a dream world.


right smh
for the simple fact using Uber doesnt give you the convience to go where u want when you want. You have to wait on somebody to come get you
please people love to have cars and maintain their cleanliness and their look


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> Computer may not "make mistakes"
> But have you ever heard of computers glitching? or you believe all computers work perfectly?
> it only take 1 glitch to turn into a million dollar lawsuit
> 
> ...


Some of the recent airline crashes may be because the pilots can't handle the new computerized airlines in an emergency.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

painfreepc said:


> Who can do that?, are you joking,
> all robot cars..really, you actually think all humans will give up driving.. you are in a dream world.


Well when your person driven car insurance is 75% of your yearly income are you still going to drive yourself? Will governments at some point even allow people to drive themselves? They do not allow them to not wear helmets right? They can control risky behavior.

I guess the argument is there are still horse drawn carriages that cruise around central park. Guess there will be a amusement park called "drive yourself". And of course Nascar will still be around, unless they just convert that to a video game and have people compete that way. Think the younger generation will like that better.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Computer may not "make mistakes"
> But have you ever heard of computers glitching? or you believe all computers work perfectly?
> it only take 1 glitch to turn into a million dollar lawsuit
> 
> ...


That's apples and oranges. That train was relying on a single sensor system not like today. If that train had just had GPS feedback it wouldn't have happened. It will never be perfectly safe, but driverless cars could easily be much much safer than humans.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> Well when your self driving car insurance is 75% of your yearly income are you still going to drive yourself? Will governments at some point even allow people to drive themselves? They do not allow them to not wear helmets right? They can control risky behavior.
> 
> I guess the argument is there are still horse drawn carriages that cruise around central park. Guess there will be a amusement park called "drive yourself". And of course Nascar will still be around, unless they just convert that to a video game and have people compete that way. Think the younger generation will like that better.


I don't think the federal government has that authority. Traffic laws are state laws, nod federal.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I don't think the federal government has that authority. Traffic laws are state laws, nod federal.


Sure, well state government then. Where do you imagine the first city will be that does not allow human driven vehicles? I would say NY would be the first on that list. Think they have considered only allowing commercial vehicle in the city center to alleviate congestion. Think they are almost there now with the cost of parking and insurance.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> Sure, well state government then. Where do you imagine the first city will be that does not allow human driven vehicles? I would say NY would be the first on that list. Think they have considered only allowing commercial vehicle in the city center to alleviate congestion. Think they are almost there now with the cost of parking and insurance.


That's a good guess. Low speed, eliminate traffic jams, early technology adopters, willing to surrender their rights.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> Some of the recent airline crashes may be because the pilots can't handle the new computerized airlines in an emergency.


...and yet airline travel is as safe as its ever been. The commercial passenger jets of today aren't anywhere near as sophisticated as self driving cars would be.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> That's a good guess. Low speed, eliminate traffic jams, early technology adopters, willing to surrender their rights.


HA! very true. I would guess Montana maybe the last state to do it, if ever!


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> HA! very true. I would guess Montana maybe the last state to do it, if ever!


Yep, it would be a hard sell in rural areas I would think.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> That's apples and oranges. That train was relying on a single sensor system not like today. If that train had just had GPS feedback it wouldn't have happened. It will never be perfectly safe, but driverless cars could easily be much much safer than humans.


its not apples and oranges
its a computer being used to transport people around, same as driverless Uber
the train system clearly has more than a single sensor as you say
its no different than sensors and cameras used by driverless cars than can get damaged when a deer hits it and then it wont know what to do


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> its not apples and oranges
> its a computer being used to transport people around, same as driverless Uber
> the train system clearly has more than a single sensor as you say
> its no different than sensors and cameras used by driverless cars than can get damaged when a deer hits it and then it wont know what to do


It was a single sensor system. The train stopped on a track that couldn't sense it. If the train had been reporting its location via GPS the train that hit it would have slowed. Add in cameras and other redundant sensor systems that weren't on those trains and it could be nearly fail proof. We are talking massive technological leaps over that system as it existed in 2009.

By the way, there was an engineer who applied the brakes the moment he saw the other train and it didn't prevent the accident.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> It was a single sensor system. The train stopped on a track that couldn't sense it. If the train had been reporting its location via GPS the train that hit it would have slowed. Hadd in cameras and other redundant sensor systems that weren't on those trains and it could be nearly fail proof. We are talking massive technological leaps over that system as it existed in 2009.
> 
> By the way, there was an engineer who applied the brakes the moment he saw the other train and it didn't prevent the accident.


a computer is one thing
but driverless cars rely on sensors. a perfect computer is no good without proper sensors and proper human input into it(the programming)
and you i guess, are telling me since 2009 is 5 years ago, current sensors today will never fail
check...........
and i guess you are telling me, that tech has made leaps and bounds, that tech glitches in computers are not even possible anymore huh?
check.............
we've found another expert


----------



## Simon (Jan 4, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> Who can do that?, are you joking,
> all robot cars..really, you actually think all humans will give up driving.. you are in a dream world.


Not all but those that don't will have a special lane to drive on and it will cost $$ to have a permit for it. Driverless cars will dominate the future it would reduce accidents virtually eliminate traffic jams and get you to your destination quicker.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> a computer is one thing
> but driverless cars rely on sensors. a perfect computer is no good without proper sensors and proper human input into it(the programming)
> and you i guess, are telling me since 2009 is 5 years ago, current sensors today will never fail
> check...........
> ...


All valid points. Of course there are redundant sensors and such and the most that would happen is the car would come to a safe stop and refuse to move. Hopefully functional tests would sniff out sensor failure long before they happened. But what of a cheese burger wrapper getting stuck in front of one of the sensors? I don't know, all interesting problems to solve.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> a computer is one thing
> but driverless cars rely on sensors. a perfect computer is no good without proper sensors and proper human input into it(the programming)
> and you i guess, are telling me since 2009 is 5 years ago, current sensors today will never fail
> check...........
> ...


Six years ago and, no, I'm not saying sensors will never fail. I'm say the quality and redundancy along with 4 or 5 different communications systems between the car, central system, satellites, other cars, and fixed points would make them as safe as could possibly be. Comparing that train's system to the systems self-driving cars will use is like comparing the kitty hawk to the space shuttle.

Of course the computer can glitch. That's why you have redundancy.

Human drivers are horrible. It's really not that hard to make cars safer than human driving. Computers won't drink and drive, speed, change lanes suddenly, eat while driving, text while driving, or do any of the other really stupid things humans do.


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

Walkersm said:


> All valid points. Of course there are redundant sensors and such and the most that would happen is the car would come to a safe stop and refuse to move. Hopefully functional tests would sniff out sensor failure long before they happened. But what of a cheese burger wrapper getting stuck in front of one of the sensors? I don't know, all interesting problems to solve.


How would it refuse to move, that would be an illegal stop in a lane and create a traffic jam, a robot cop would need to give the robot car a ticket...lol


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Simon said:


> Not all but those that don't will have a special lane to drive on and it will cost $$ to have a permit for it. Driverless cars will dominate the future it would reduce accidents virtually eliminate traffic jams and get you to your destination quicker.


The costs of driving will plummet. Time and energy costs. Wear and tear on the vehicle from jack rabbiting and hitting curbs and all the other things humans do.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

painfreepc said:


> How would it refuse to move, that would be an illegal stop in a lane and create a traffic jam, a robot cop would need to give the robot car a ticket...lol


Yea I imagine cops of the future instead of handling accidents would be going around tending to glitching cars. And probably sending the owners of the cars a bill just like they do now with glitching home alarm systems. I think they will have little RC car controllers they can plug into the car to bypass the computer controls and move them off to the side of the road for later pick up by automated tow trucks.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

I don't know about you guys but I can't wait for self driving cars. You could get rid of the expense of a vehicle. You would never get stuck somewhere and need a tow, just call another car. You can sleep or party or read or whatever. It could actually become so safe, you could stop wearing seatbelts and have like mini-RVs with bathrooms and refrigerators and such.

Self driving cars could travel at much higher speeds. especially if interstates are ALL self driving and they are adapted to serve the self driving cars.



painfreepc said:


> How would it refuse to move, that would be an illegal stop in a lane and create a traffic jam, a robot cop would need to give the robot car a ticket...lol


What if every car was capable of pulling another car? Now any car in the area just backs up, docks, and moves the stalled car out of the way.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Human drivers are horrible. It's really not that hard to make cars safer than human driving. Computers won't drink and drive, speed, change lanes suddenly, eat while driving, text while driving, or do any of the other really stupid things humans do.


true, but humans have perception of reality that's very hard to immigrate via a computer
being able to tell a cat from a box (instead of just objects to a computer)
being able to tell that hitting the guard rail is safer than hitting the other cars
the human is better able to perceive things
a computer is simply better able to execute them


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> Yea I imagine cops of the future instead of handling accidents would be going around tending to glitching cars. And probably sending the owners of the cars a bill just like they do now with glitching home alarm systems. I think they will have little RC car controllers they can plug into the car to bypass the computer controls and move them off to the side of the road for later pick up by automated tow trucks.


I don't think you would get ticketed just as you don't today for a stalled car. Also, if they are primarily not owned by the passenger, any tickets would go to the business that owned the car I would think except for human behavior like littering.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> true, but humans have perception of reality that's very hard to immigrate via a computer
> being able to tell a cat from a box (instead of just objects to a computer)
> being able to tell that hitting the guard rail is safer than hitting the other cars
> the human is better able to perceive things
> a computer is simply better able to execute them


Well, at the risk of just sounding argumentative, I think you are way underestimating today's technologies. I would say the computer could be far superior at perception and far faster and better decisions. Humans need headlights at night, SDC's won't. Humans can have bad vision, get tired, be angry, on drugs, it goes on and on.

A computer could absolutely discern between a cat and a box with infrared heat signature. If it couldn't, is that really a big deal that it avoids both?


----------



## UberXTampa (Nov 20, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motor...ar-in-customers--hands-by-2017-202033465.html
> 
> If self-driving technology has seemed more like science fiction than fact so far, it's because of not just the limits of the software, but the legal rules as well. All trials of self-driving vehicles in the United States so far have involved a handful of corporate employees in just a few states, and even then the results look like a new form of cruise control rather than something that could change how we live.
> 
> ...


Send all 100 of these cars to India. If one makes it back, test successful. For those that fail, post YouTube videos to cover the cost. Work on next generation of 100 cars to send to India again.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

@Bart McCoy - Do you realise we have destroyers that can fight the enemy in total autonomous mode? It can identify threats on the water, under the water, and in the air, move into place and attack all on it's own (theoretically). It can engage multiple threats at the same time and organise them by threat level.

Right now it carries a normal crew but it can go down to just 44 sailors who maintain the systems and set it into battle mode. It makes its own fuel from seawater, has weaponized lasers, and railguns.

with self driving cars you need to consider that the same technology that allows F22's know what every other military vehicle in the area knows, can be used. The self driving cars would all talk to each other and even to drones. If it's raining up ahead, the car knows it from radar feeds, other cars, drones, etc so it slows. It could take in far more information than a human can sense on their own and prepare well ahead of time as to speed, route, cooperative behavior, etc.

I imagine if there were an object in the road it couldn't deal with, all cars would stop and ask the humans to determine what it is and/or remove it. In the end though, if a ladder comes flying off a work van, I would trust the car to avoid it better than a human and to do so without crashing into other cars who would all know the ladder was coming and the front car was in avoidance and how it was avoiding.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Well, at the risk of just sounding argumentative, I think you are way underestimating today's technologies. I would say the computer could be far superior at perception and far faster and better decisions. Humans need headlights at night, SDC's won't. Humans can have bad vision, get tired, be angry, on drugs, it goes on and on.
> 
> A computer could absolutely discern between a cat and a box with infrared heat signature. If it couldn't, is that really a big deal that it avoids both?


i wouldnt call it argumentive, its just discussion here, and nothing should be personal

humans need headlights, get tired, need food,can be on drugs, etc etc. Yeah, maybe true, but none of that is human perception of events. Aka recognizing things as you drive


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> @Bart McCoy - Do you realise we have destroyers that can fight the enemy in total autonomous mode? It can identify threats on the water, under the water, and in the air, move into place and attack all on it's own (theoretically). It can engage multiple threats at the same time and organise them by threat level.
> .


true
so why dont we have fully driverless cars right now on the streets as well?


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I imagine if there were an object in the road it couldn't deal with, all cars would stop and ask the humans to determine what it is and/or remove it. In the end though, if a ladder comes flying off a work van, I would trust the car to avoid it better than a human and to do so without crashing into other cars who would all know the ladder was coming and the front car was in avoidance and how it was avoiding.


my point is, the computer needs to be able to handle 100% of all possible INFINITE scenarios it can encounter while driving,or the company will go bankrupt from lawsuits
i wouldnt put my life in the hands of that right now

so you feel a computer and its sensors will be perfect........when?


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I don't know about you guys but I can't wait for self driving cars. You could get rid of the expense of a vehicle. You would never get stuck somewhere and need a tow, just call another car. You can sleep or party or read or whatever. It could actually become so safe, you could stop wearing seatbelts and have like mini-RVs with bathrooms and refrigerators and such.
> 
> Self driving cars could travel at much higher speeds. especially if interstates are ALL self driving and they are adapted to serve the self driving cars.
> 
> What if every car was capable of pulling another car? Now any car in the area just backs up, docks, and moves the stalled car out of the way.


Are you talking about real self driving cars able to go to any random A and B location,

Or just some kind of computerized virtual fixed car rial system.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> Are you talking about real self driving cars able to go to any random A and B location,
> 
> Or just some kind of computerized virtual fixed car rial system.


Completely autonomous that can go anywhere.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> true
> so why dont we have fully driverless cars right now on the streets as well?


Because it cost a fortune to design. Replicating it will be much cheaper. Just as Space X is replicating (and improving) what NASA spent trillions to learn.


----------



## UberXTampa (Nov 20, 2014)

I can't imagine how Uber riders would manipulate driverless cars into driving to dangerous intersections or requesting several of them all into the same location for fun. It is no different than playing a computer game with real cars. There will be a complete new forum exchanging ideas on how to manipulate driverless cars into making stupid things.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> my point is, the computer needs to be able to handle 100% of all possible INFINITE scenarios it can encounter while driving,or the company will go bankrupt from lawsuits
> i wouldnt put my life in the hands of that right now
> 
> so you feel a computer and its sensors will be perfect........when?


I think that can be delt with ahead of time. You can't sue, or at least shouldn't win, in accidents, just for negligence. You can't sue a car company just because you get a flat and crash now. I would assume some type of waivers would be involved.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UberXTampa said:


> I can't imagine how Uber riders would manipulate driverless cars into driving to dangerous intersections or requesting several of them all into the same location for fun. It is no different than playing a computer game with real cars. There will be a complete new forum exchanging ideas on how to manipulate driverless cars into making stupid things.


People will do crazy things which is one reason they suck as drivers.


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Because it cost a fortune to design. Replicating it will be much cheaper. Just as Space X is replicating (and improving) what NASA spent trillions to learn.


If you think self driving cars will work on city streets and highways in the real everyday world, without some kind of AI computer technology, good luck.. dream on.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> People will do crazy things which is one reason they suck as drivers.


well there's good drivers and bad drivers


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> i wouldnt call it argumentive, its just discussion here, and nothing should be personal
> 
> humans need headlights, get tired, need food,can be on drugs, etc etc. Yeah, maybe true, but none of that is human perception of events. Aka recognizing things as you drive


Human perception is very limited and subject to failure. A sensor will know there is ice whereas a person may not. A car up ahead can warn of a deer on the side of the road that people can't even see in the dark. It's the ability of the entire system and all it knows using far more senses than a human vs a single person's imperfect perception.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> If you think self driving cars will work on city streets and highways in the real everyday world, without some kind of AI computer technology, good luck.. dream on.


It would depend on your definition af AI. If you mean self aware, no, that's not nessecary.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Human perception is very limited and subject to failure. A sensor will know there is ice whereas a person may not. A car up ahead can warn of a deer on the side of the road that people can't even see in the dark. It's the ability of the entire system and all it knows using far more senses than a human vs a single person's imperfect perception.


obviously techs arent as certain that it can handle all these things you mention, since they are still years way from hitting the streets....


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> well there's good drivers and bad drivers


There are consistently bad drivers and less consistently bad. We are all bad drivers sometimes.

It's not just about ability, it's about information. The car will know far more over vast distances than a human ever could and know it in milliseconds.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> obviously techs arent as certain that it can handle all these things you mention, since they are still years way from hitting the streets....


It's more about liability as you have pointed out. Self driving is possible today. Volvo wouldn't be announcing it in 2017 otherwise. While there will still be a driver, we have yet to see if they will ever be actually needed.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> There are consistently bad drivers and less consistently bad. We are all bad drivers sometimes.
> 
> It's not just about ability, it's about information. The car will know far more over vast distances than a human ever could and know it in milliseconds.


but its not about the database of information a driverless car knows, its about a computer being able to perceive as a human being and react to real life driving situation properly


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> It's more about liability as you have pointed out. Self driving is possible today. Volvo wouldn't be announcing it in 2017 otherwise. While there will still be a driver, we have yet to see if they will ever be actually needed.


what do you mean liablity? computers dont make mistakes, only humans......right?

and come on now, many companies announce dates
and all of them stick to them?


----------



## Simon (Jan 4, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> my point is, the computer needs to be able to handle 100% of all possible INFINITE scenarios it can encounter while driving,or the company will go bankrupt from lawsuits
> i wouldnt put my life in the hands of that right now
> 
> so you feel a computer and its sensors will be perfect........when?


I still hate this guy...


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> but its not about the database of information a driverless car knows, its about a computer being able to perceive as a human being and react to real life driving situation properly


The car will know far more than a human could and will have far faster reactions. I don't see how adding human perception makes things safer when it's so easily deceived and distracted. Most plane crashes are pilot error and not system failure.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> what do you mean liablity? computers dont make mistakes, only humans......right?
> 
> and come on now, many companies announce dates
> and all of them stick to them?


No, sometimes they delay and sometimes they deliver early like Space X.

Computers don't make mistakes, they break or have bad code or bad information, but they don't make mistakes per se. At least not in the human way. Computers don't crash into trees because a bee flies into the open window.

I would bet that we will see fully driverless cars become common this decade. It'll take steps to earn the public's trust and for regulators to get paid.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> The car will know far more than a human could and will have far faster reactions. I don't see how adding human perception makes things safer when it's so easily deceived and distracted. Most plane crashes are pilot error and not system failure.


so why arent boeing 727 and 747 fully automatic?
why put a human in the equation if they are the sole cause of crashes?


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Computers don't make mistakes, they break or have bad code or bad information, but they don't make mistakes per se. At least not in the human way. Computers don't crash into trees because a bee flies into the open window.
> .


when someone's child dies because of a driverless car, nobody is gonna care about if it was a mistake,bad code, or bad information. The point is,the driverless car is allowed to make zero mistakes. Any positive number allowed and you might as well put a human there.............

I dont think theres a computer here yet that's glitch free
surely not for driverless cars, or we'd see them on the streets
Things can always go wrong with computers. The past has proven that


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> so why arent boeing 727 and 747 fully automatic?
> why put a human in the equation if they are the sole cause of crashes?


You like to change my words to force me into a straw man argument. I said most crashes are human failure, not all.

I know this is not going to sit well with you, but pilotless planes exist already in the military and commercial planes, with the type of sensor packages and communications I'm talking about, would be far safer than piloted.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> You like to change my words to force me into a straw man argument. I said most crashes are human failure, not all.
> 
> I know this is not going to sit well with you, but pilotless planes exist already in the military and commercial planes, with the type of sensor packages and communications I'm talking about, would be far safer than piloted.


you said "not all". that's not acceptable in a driverless vechile

and I dont live under a rock, drones been around for years
however I still dont see passenger/commercial airlines going fully automatic with no pilots and just plane crew to serve beer and peanuts, now do we?

so again, if planes are "far safe than piloted" by humans, why oh why are we putting humans in places where they are only reason we have crashes and accidents???????????????????????? Common sense says to just run computers right? They never mess us.......


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> when someone's child dies because of a driverless car, nobody is gonna care about if it was a mistake,bad code, or bad information. The point is,the driverless car is allowed to make zero mistakes. Any positive number allowed and you might as well put a human there.............
> 
> I dont think theres a computer here yet that's glitch free
> surely not for driverless cars, or we'd see them on the streets
> Things can always go wrong with computers. The past has proven that


Things can indeed go wrong and certainly will. We already have auto breaking and auto parking and avoidance systems in cars. It's just a matter of increments.

One of the oft ignored advantages of driverless cars is car design. What happens when we don't need windows? We could design fully sealed cars far less suseptible to roof collapse. We would be able to shape for safety and fuel economy instead of for the driver and to protect the passengers from driver mistakes. Passenger compartments that could float, that could be detached and upgraded on the auto base, that have 100% airbag surrounds.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Things can indeed go wrong and certainly will. We already have auto breaking and auto parking and avoidance systems in cars. It's just a matter of increments.
> 
> One of the oft ignored advantages of driverless cars is car design. What happens when we don't need windows? We could design fully sealed cars far less suseptible to roof collapse. We would be able to shape for safety and fuel economy instead of for the driver and to protect the passengers from driver mistakes. Passenger compartments that could float, that could be detached and upgraded on the auto base, that have 100% airbag surrounds.


again, not debating driverless cars will happen
just debating the year 2017...........................................................


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

They are already getting close and there are a number of heavyweights in on this race.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> again, not debating driverless cars will happen
> just debating the year 2017...........................................................


I agree. For the launch purposes, there will be drivers not driving. It's just a matter of time after that but it won't take long. Not more than 3-4 years is my guess.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I agree. For the launch purposes, there will be drivers not driving. It's just a matter of time after that but it won't take long. Not more than 3-4 years is my guess.


so all of us Uberers are done in 2020?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> so all of us Uberers are done in 2020?


Probably, yes. Truck drivers not long after. Unless unions screw us.


----------



## UberXtraordinary (Dec 13, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> but would it cheap enough?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control


Exactly! Elon says that innovation that does not concern itself with economics, can not succeed. The idea that X would be possible if $ were eliminated does not understand the nessecity of calculation to efficiently distribute resources. It's the reason he's attempting to land rockets, and building a gigafactory... To force the economics to work for his goals.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UberXtraordinary said:


> Exactly! Elon says that innovation that does not concern itself with economics, can not succeed. The idea that X would be possible if $ were eliminated does not understand the nessecity of calculation to efficiently distribute resources. It's the reason he's attempting to land rockets, and building a gigafactory... To force the economics to work for his goals.


Yes. Which just begs the question if an economical solution to noise is out there or possible.


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Things can indeed go wrong and certainly will. We already have auto breaking and auto parking and avoidance systems in cars. It's just a matter of increments.
> 
> One of the oft ignored advantages of driverless cars is car design. What happens when we don't need windows? We could design fully sealed cars far less suseptible to roof collapse. We would be able to shape for safety and fuel economy instead of for the driver and to protect the passengers from driver mistakes. Passenger compartments that could float, that could be detached and upgraded on the auto base, that have 100% airbag surrounds.


So not only will we give up are right to drive, we will give up the right to enjoy the view of the city as we pass by,

Hell why even go anywhere at all, let's just sit on are asses and let the robot cars bring everything to us,

Drive to a red box, hell red box robot car will come to your door,

Drive to Jack in the box, are you kidding, Jack in the box robot car will bring your food after you order it on line.

Great new world.


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

Don't forget, the government will know everywhere you go, if you made any stops along the way, if you picked up anyone, yes can't wait.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> So not only will we give up are right to drive, we will give up the right to enjoy the view of the city as we pass by,
> 
> Hell why even go anywhere at all, let's just sit on are asses and let the robot cars bring everything to us,
> 
> ...


Not having windows doesn't mean no view. You could easily have a screen and camera. I'm also not saying you couldn't roll down the panels, just that it wouldn't need to be glass. The advantages would be huge in safety and comfort.

Everything you stated already exists. I don't use redbox, I stream. Pizza is already delivered and, in many areas, food from any restaurant can be delivered by a variety of food delivery services.

Great new world? I think so, yes. Millions of lives saved, reduced costs, no leaving your family to go run errands. Sounds awesome to me. You could have miniature ones for cheap fast package delivery. Cooking and forgot an ingredient? It's an app click away. Working on a project and need a forgotten part from home depot? Click.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> Don't forget, the government will know everywhere you go, if you made any stops along the way, if you picked up anyone, yes can't wait.


If you have a cell phone they already can know that if they want.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

...also, while you do have the right to free movement, you don't actually have a right to drive. It's an earned privlage.


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> ...also, while you do have the right to free movement, you don't actually have a right to drive. It's an earned privlage.


Everyone on this forum has already earned the privilege to drive,

Are you saying we will all need to re-earn the privilege to drive after the robot cars hit the road,

You are starting to sound like the movie "I Robot"

Humans go back in your homes, we are here to protect you.

Watch out people, the Fed's will pull your drivers license.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> Everyone on this forum has already earned the privilege to drive,
> 
> Are you saying we will all need to re-earn the privilege to drive after the robot cars hit the road,
> 
> ...


I have no idea what will happen with driving. As was said before, the insurance rates may make it prohibitive once self driving cars are proven to be far safer.


----------



## Orlando_Driver (Jul 14, 2014)

I'm not riding in a Johnny Cab...


----------



## Ubored (Feb 7, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> nearly 100% ? cars arent human
> im sure i can come up with situations that require human input/decision while driving
> like how can it tell if its being pulled over by a real cop or a fake cop trying to carjack/rob you?


I think to make this self driving cars successful a human partcipation is needed. There should be a human sitting behind the camera
monitors at the nerve center giving real time feedback to the dummy on its shortcoming, like if it facing James Bond or real Cop.
Did it run over a teddy bear or Teddy Turner. Defeating the purpose? No. Because the person can monitor maybe 10 or 20 cars
on the road for their 10% misjudgment or miscalculation. You can translate that one human driving 10 or 20 cars is still a progress.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Ubored said:


> I think to make this self driving cars successful a human partcipation is needed. There should be a human sitting behind the camera
> monitors at the nerve center giving real time feedback to the dummy on its shortcoming, like if it facing James Bond or real Cop.
> Did it run over a teddy bear or Teddy Turner. Defeating the purpose? No. Because the person can monitor maybe 10 or 20 cars
> on the road for their 10% misjudgment or miscalculation. You can translate that one human driving 10 or 20 cars is still a progress.


true

or how bout a situation where a totally driverless car comes to a stop sign, a guy on a bike/motorcycle pulls up perpendicular in front of it,and parks it in front of the car. He pulls out a knife saying "gimmee everything". Surely the computer will tell the car to just stop and go no where. I doubt it will IMMEDIATELY back up and go around,if at all(esp if theres a car behind it). So now the driverless car leaves you stopped while a crook starts to come to you and take all your belongings, whereas, a human being.....probably would have mashed the gas and ran him over. You wont be held liable because you did it because you were scared for your life (just look up the real life story of the Range Rover vs motorcyles)

This is a case where doing something illegal saves your life (running into a bike),whereas a driverless car will always do legal, and sit and let you get mugged. Who wants to be in a driverless car where criminals and make the car go basically dead, and just leave u stranded as criminal prey?

The thing is, a driverless car has to adapt to crooks. Crooks may want to hijack or hack the car, or figure out how its more easy to steal the car or rob/harm the people in it, because there's no driver,and they know the car wont do some dangerous run over type things like a human would..............


----------



## dandy driver (Jan 28, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motor...ar-in-customers--hands-by-2017-202033465.html
> 
> If self-driving technology has seemed more like science fiction than fact so far, it's because of not just the limits of the software, but the legal rules as well. All trials of self-driving vehicles in the United States so far have involved a handful of corporate employees in just a few states, and even then the results look like a new form of cruise control rather than something that could change how we live.
> 
> ...


Are we allowed to put on a self driving car with Uber yet? If we do does the car get star rated or do we? If Uber takes our 20% and uses driverless Cars instead of us can we file for unemployment?


----------



## Ubored (Feb 7, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> The thing is, a driverless car has to adapt to crooks.


Bart, I think crooks invented the driverless car to take my job for their profit.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Ubored said:


> Bart, I think crooks invented the driverless car to take my job for their profit.


LoL


----------



## Jeremy Joe (Jan 16, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> .... you could stop wearing seatbelts and have like mini-RVs with bathrooms and refrigerators and such.
> 
> Self driving cars could travel at much higher speeds.


Dude, guess what? I actually LOVE the idea of driverless cars in the form of mini Rvs with bathrooms. Coming to think of it, I'll LOVE it even more when the car's sensors detect an obstacle on the highway while cruising at 75 mph and screech to a halt, while I'm taking a shit. Can't wait!!


----------



## Jeremy Joe (Jan 16, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> If you think self driving cars will work on city streets and highways in the real everyday world, without some kind of AI computer technology, good luck.. dream on.


Finally, a realistic post.


----------



## uberThere (Feb 22, 2015)

I'm not going to wade through this entire post because I don't have the time. However, I worked on AI, and Computer Vision for a graduate degree, and I can tell you that anyone who thinks that computers can deal with the real-world is dreaming. Computers are great when they know the end state, and can compute in a known algorithm, but that's not what driving is. I worked with people who modeled the human brain, and it took hours for them to model a fraction of what the human brain did in a few seconds; just think about that. Humans are adept at dealing with unknowns, but computers just can't deal with it. 

As an example, Honda was finally able to program a robot to walk like a human (Asimo), but they had to cheat to do it. They had to film a human walking and feed the input into the computers because they couldn't figure out any other way to do it. This project still took 20 years to evolve, getting self-driving cars in anything less is delusional. Humans can adapt, and learn, computers are far less able to do this. Even the most advanced algorithms aren't able to adapt as quickly and effortlessly as a human. Even the dullest of people can adapt to their environment, but a computer can only do this if it is programmed to do so, and that isn't easy. The real wold is full of open-ended situations and imperfect solutions. Humans deal with these situations as a matter of course, but computers aren't able to adapt to them. Even an idiot driver is able to deal with complex, ever-changing situation far better than a super computer can.


----------



## Jeremy Joe (Jan 16, 2015)

uberThere said:


> I'm not going to wade through this entire post because I don't have the time. However, I worked on AI, and Computer Vision for a graduate degree, and I can tell you that anyone who thinks that computers can deal with the real-world is dreaming. Computers are great when they know the end state, and can compute in a known algorithm, but that's not what driving is. I worked with people who modeled the human brain, and it took hours for them to model a fraction of what the human brain did in a few seconds; just think about that. Humans are adept at dealing with unknowns, but computers just can't deal with it.
> 
> As an example, Honda was finally able to program a robot to walk like a human (Asimo), but they had to cheat to do it. They had to film a human walking and feed the input into the computers because they couldn't figure out any other way to do it. This project still took 20 years to evolve, getting self-driving cars in anything less is delusional. Humans can adapt, and learn, computers are far less able to do this. Even the most advanced algorithms aren't able to adapt as quickly and effortlessly as a human. Even the dullest of people can adapt to their environment, but a computer can only do this if it is programmed to do so, and that isn't easy. The real wold is full of open-ended situations and imperfect solutions. Humans deal with these situations as a matter of course, but computers aren't able to adapt to them. Even an idiot driver is able to deal with complex, ever-changing situation far better than a super computer can.


Yes, I agree with you 100%.


----------

