 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.50.224.62
In Reply to: RE: Autonomous self driving cars.. The 2010's version of the 1950's 'flying car' ? posted by 3+4=5 on March 25, 2017 at 08:31:25
3+4=5,
I kinda hope you're right, but sadly, I don't think you are.
The technology (at an affordable price point) needed for self-driving cars is more-or-less here (flying cars - not so much - either in the 1950s or now).
There is a lot of effort and money pouring into perfecting LIDAR (light detection and ranging) technology, one of the enabling technologies for self-driving cars. Companies with any serious aspirations toward developing self-driving cars are gobbling up tech start-ups having LIDAR technology.
I think the transition will be one of the more difficult issues; that is, the period of time when we have driver-less and human-piloted autos on the road at the same time. During that period of time, advanced AI would undoubtedly prevent accidents. However, in an environment in which most/all cars are driverless, advanced AI is probably less important.
Perhaps it will be phased in by restricting travel on certain roads or lanes to one or the other type of car.
Your point about lawsuits is well taken. Perhaps lobbyists will persuade Congress that the development of driverless cars is important enough that legislation is enacted to deal with the issue (e.g., place limits on liability, etc).
It will take awhile, but I would be surprised if we don't see driver-less cars on the road within 15-20 years.
Follow Ups:
Commercial drivers will be the first to go. Losing the driver saves money. A driverless truck has already delivered a test load of beer from Ft. Collins to Colorado Springs without the driver in the truck intervening.
Will the AI be any more dangerous than a sleepy driver?
*
"We are as gods and might as well get good at it." - Stewart Brand
You are probably correct about that.
In addition to your point about $$$, consumer acceptance (i.e., unease with riding along in a driver-less vehicle) is expected to be one of the key stumbling blocks to widespread use of this technology. In the case of trucking, no passenger will be present, so an occupant's "unease" is a non-issue.
A driverless truck full of beer crashes into a car.
There is no truck driver.
Who takes responsibility for the crash?
Who pays the victims?
Maybe it gets decided that because driverless vehicles are statistically safer than driven vehicles, the beer company's truck insurer will agree insure the driverless fleet AND accept the liability in all accidents without argument - Great! Everybody will save some money because there will be fewer accidents.
BUT what if there is civil action? - Who will the Judge decide was in control of the truck at the time of the accident? The beer company or the vehicle builder, or the software company that designed the driverless tech?
Will we end up with a whole new Ralph Nader thing? Hundreds of dead pedestrians and cyclists killed by driverless vehicles while the car companies say it's fine, because even though their driverless vehicles are killing them, there are fewer being killed than in the old days by drivers?
Cheers,
John K
Yes, all stake holders and anyone that has given this some thought is aware of the issues and disaster scenarios.
But the writing is on the wall and legislation is already being passed.
Read the link that I posted earlier.
I fail to see what difference the car companies' line is about deaths resulting from driver-less cars. If less people die, it's a good thing, isn't it? Is it somehow worse if you are killed by a driver-less car than a car with a driver?
Unless some massive no blame insurance and compensation scheme starts so that responsibility is no longer critical.
Cheers,
John K
The company Monsanto managed to get a law passed freeing them of any liability if GMO stuff goes South. (And that is a hell of a sweet deal)
So I guess the automotive companies can get the same sort of deal.
I'm not persuaded.
Bear in mind that I am a systems analyst, and a trainer and tutor of systems analysts.
Even the USN's AEGIS system is still not perfected.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
All possible scenarios? Of course not, Tim. That is probably impossible. But, let me ask - should that be a requirement?
How beneficial would it be for society at large if auto accidents were reduced by say 50%, 75%, or even 25%? How many lives would be saved? Drunk driving and its foreseeable and sometimes devastating outcome becomes a thing of the past.
And with respect to AEGIS, well ... it's considerably tougher to acquire, track, and intercept an in-bound missile than identify an erratically operating or off-course auto :-)
We'll see.
This stuff is being thought about.
Self driving car researchers are already saying that cyclists pose a real problem because of their high speeds and often narrow profile and ability to hide behind/beside other larger vehicles.
And then there is this guy .....
It would be funny if not so thought provoking.
Cheers,
John K
Say I know for a fact the car I am going to cut in front of is a self driver. Then I CAN mercilessly cut in front of it, Since I KNOW it will stop, not maybe stop.
When regular drivers begin to understand the entertainment value of things one can do to mess with self driving cars...
It will be fun. and carnage. and fun.
To say nothing of the entertainment value of hearing news reports of how some self driving moron got served a hefty ticket from an all human cop who nabs him getting his jollies just so.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
