You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Driverless Cars by 2021
April 25 2019 3.13am

Driverless Cars by 2021

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 19 Nov 17 8.11pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

This is the world my children will grow up with....most of us will catch its growing pains.

Who's gonna drive you home....tonight?
An NVIDIA Tegra Processor.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Pussay Patrol's Profile Pussay Patrol Flag 19 Nov 17 10.06pm Send a Private Message to Pussay Patrol Add Pussay Patrol as a friend

Originally posted by jeeagles

I'm told driverless cars will be much safer than normal cars, but this big issue with them is what choice they make when an accident is unavoidable.

For example:

A group of school kids run out into the road infront of the car.
There is not time to break, so the car needs to either swerve or hit the kids.

If it swerves it will crash into a wall and injur the driver and potentially a couple of adult pedestrians.

The logical answer should be to swerve to keep injuries to a minimum, but would you buy a car that's programmed to hurt you?

Am I missing something? I thought driverless cars would use sensors to make judgments on speed, distance, braking, virtually eliminating accidents? When you think about it all car accidents are down to human error?

 


Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View jeeagles's Profile jeeagles Flag 19 Nov 17 11.32pm Send a Private Message to jeeagles Add jeeagles as a friend

Originally posted by Pussay Patrol

Am I missing something? I thought driverless cars would use sensors to make judgments on speed, distance, braking, virtually eliminating accidents? When you think about it all car accidents are down to human error?

They will use sensors and the sensors react a lot faster than humans ever could which is why they will reduce accidents.

But they will still need to decelerate and there may not always be time.

It's enviable that at some point there will be an accident in which the circumstances requires picking the least bad of two options.

Here's a better explanation:

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Midlands Eagle's Profile Midlands Eagle Flag 20 Nov 17 7.27am Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Goldfiinger

The new Teslas have full driverless car tech built in to them ready to be switched on as soon as governments give the green light.

The tech is ready, just need the government to catch up and its good their not that far behind.

It should read that the tech is supposedly ready as a Tesla test driver was killed last year when his car on autopilot crashed into a lorry because the lorry was apparently the wrong colour and the car couldn't "see" it

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 20 Nov 17 8.57am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Thanks for the comments so far some very good both for and against. To pick up on a couple of comments

I agree that 2021 may not be achievable but I think it will be sooner than many people think.

Is the technology dangerous? The manufacturers will have to prove it's safety. I saw the story of the Tesla driver killed. Very sad but Tesla will have to fix that problem. You cannot fix human error when it occurs.

I think the biggest obstacle is emotional. Drivers are very proud and connected to their driving ability and their beloved motors. It may take the next generation for that to change same way as the young embrace social media.

Anyway please keep posting I am learning a lot.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Pussay Patrol's Profile Pussay Patrol Flag 20 Nov 17 11.24am Send a Private Message to Pussay Patrol Add Pussay Patrol as a friend

Originally posted by jeeagles

They will use sensors and the sensors react a lot faster than humans ever could which is why they will reduce accidents.

But they will still need to decelerate and there may not always be time.

It's enviable that at some point there will be an accident in which the circumstances requires picking the least bad of two options.

Here's a better explanation:

[Link]

I'm still not with you

Surely the car would be engineered to measure distances and conditions to be able to decelerate in any scenario?

I think the biggest hurdle is where the technology fails

 


Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag bristol 20 Nov 17 12.04pm Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

They will drive at pathetically slow speeds with absurd attention to h+s. But this being the real world will inevitably hit some drunk or other person lacking full cqpacity who randomly careers into the street. There will be calls for them to be banned or else taken off the road until the glitch (there isn't one) is fixed. Meanwhile, in the many months leading up to that death, thousands of people in driven cars will have died as a consequence of human error.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 20 Nov 17 1.25pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

There are already too many vehicles on the road in the UK, particularly the ones being driven by those who don't have a licence or are banned, so why would your prioritise something that is going to put even more of them on to the network?

They should be doing something to encourage vehicles off of the network at peak times. By encourage I don't mean charging people even more, which simply raises revenue instead of having the desired effect.

Driverless cars are not going to be allowed to transport drunk people, non-drivers or those deemed too old or too young so it doesn't enfranchise any of those groups either.

And if they do become widespread I'm going to cut in front of any driverless car where there is traffic, and it had better brake and give way.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View simlaboy's Profile simlaboy Flag coulsdon 20 Nov 17 1.31pm Send a Private Message to simlaboy Add simlaboy as a friend

Clarksons not a fan , apparently nearly killed test driving one but won’t reveal who the manufacturer is

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 20 Nov 17 1.38pm

Originally posted by Stuk

There are already too many vehicles on the road in the UK, particularly the ones being driven by those who don't have a licence or are banned, so why would your prioritise something that is going to put even more of them on to the network?

They should be doing something to encourage vehicles off of the network at peak times. By encourage I don't mean charging people even more, which simply raises revenue instead of having the desired effect.

Driverless cars are not going to be allowed to transport drunk people, non-drivers or those deemed too old or too young so it doesn't enfranchise any of those groups either.

And if they do become widespread I'm going to cut in front of any driverless car where there is traffic, and it had better brake and give way.

Entirely the market for driverless cars. Seems stupid to have cars that can drive themselves, but you have to be a qualified and fit driver to operate them. Surely they could be a requirement who fancies a few beers, but not paying for a cab home. Isn't that entirely the point of a car that drives itself? I could even get behind the idea of it only doing a top speed of 40, if I can just have a sleep, or read or watch a movie in the back. Like getting a train.

Driverless cars should be considered the replacement for drivers.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 20 Nov 17 1.48pm

Originally posted by Pussay Patrol

I'm still not with you

Surely the car would be engineered to measure distances and conditions to be able to decelerate in any scenario?

I think the biggest hurdle is where the technology fails

The difference between laboratory conditions and real conditions - I would hazard that driverless cars are far less likely to get into accidents with other driverless cars, that ones driven by meat sacks.

And here in lies the problem. No amount of programing of distances, and scenarios, can account human reactions. Will a human swerve left, right, slam on the breaks, freeze, accelerate to make the decreasing gap...

I think in most cases a driverless car is probably a lot safer than a emotional, unpredicatable meat sack (who's probably tired, caffeinated, thinking about that girl or what Sharon said, desperate for a p*ss or trying to change a CD).

All this talk of what would they do when they can't avoid an accident is bollocks. The entire point is you can program that - Certainly humans have no idea what they'd do in that scenario, and likely will react based entirely on adrenaline shock.

Machines are perfect for when you need to make instant decisions, based on calculated outcomes. Human's are great when it comes to thinking about how to calculated those outcomes, or you need someone to take risks based on poor decision making, that occasionally pay off.

Motor racing has human drivers, because otherwise it would be f**king dull, as there would be no risk or danger element.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 20 Nov 17 2.27pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Entirely the market for driverless cars. Seems stupid to have cars that can drive themselves, but you have to be a qualified and fit driver to operate them. Surely they could be a requirement who fancies a few beers, but not paying for a cab home. Isn't that entirely the point of a car that drives itself? I could even get behind the idea of it only doing a top speed of 40, if I can just have a sleep, or read or watch a movie in the back. Like getting a train.

Driverless cars should be considered the replacement for drivers.

Yep, if there's a viable alternative to people drink/driving or driving until an age, that they accidentally kill someone, before deciding they're unfit to do so then I'd be more for it.

Another negative for me is that we're going to run out of jobs for people to do as it is and automated taxis, delivery vehicles and buses etc. are going to make an enormous number of people unemployed.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Driverless Cars by 2021