Posted on 02/09/2016 8:52:56 AM PST by PreciousLiberty
Elon Musk's Tesla recently became the latest big shot company to enter the self-driving car sweepstakes. Mr. Musk recently announced the hiring of software architecture veteran Jim Keller, who previously had played key roles at Apple and AMD, to lead its Autopilot Engineering team. Teslas move follows the recently announced partnership between General Motors and Lyft, in which the automaker is investing $500 million in the ridesharing company as part of a joint venture to develop self-driving cars.
And of course Google, Uber, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Apple, Audi, Bosch and Delphi Automotive (the big auto parts manufacturer) all have their own much-hyped development programs for autonomous vehicles in full swing. Forget cures for cancer, climate change or world peace, the media has made it clear that self-driving cars will be the Next Great Step in civilizations drive toward magnificence.
It's time to hit the brakes for a reality check.
Despite how much Uber CEO Travis Kalanick likes to crow about our "driverless future," outside of The Jetsons this one is...not...happening...soon. Besides the remaining technological challenges, the liability and regulatory issues involved in letting a 3,000-pound death machine steer itself with no human at the controls are huge.
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.com ...
I'll expound more in the discussion area...
...because Agenda 21 will ban the use of private cars and have us all packed into Willie Green bullet trains by the time the technology is perfected.
We don't even have driver less trains and they run on rails for heavens sake.
We’re not that far from self-flying pods programmed to avoid collision and get you to your GPS coordinates quickly, safely, and conveniently. Going to a concert in the big city? Punch in the event and your parking space is already reserved. You may fly with or without looking outside, listen to tunes, watch TV, and drink a brew or two while in transit.
This will all be by virtue of the discovery of nuclear-magno-pneumatic velocitators, capable also of powering the average home for 100 years, no power grid necessary.
I have no doubt driverless cars can work. But people are viewing them as simply technological constructs, completely unconnected to the society in which they operate.
For example, in my city, if driverless cars passed through certain areas, they would most definitely be objects of graffiti “tagging” at best - at worst they would be constantly vandalized, seemingly for fun, or broken into. So then you need to upgrade their protection or laws regarding tampering, etc... Overall, beyond the simple question of “will they work” - these devices then enter the social, economic, racial, environmental etc.. spheres, where technology will take a back-seat.
Not an improbable result - Makes it too expensive to buy a car. Makes it too expensive to build new roads. Locks people out driving into the city. Keeps them locked in the city, in the very long term.
Will Asian made robo cars get a bad reputation for poor driving?
Reardon metal is too dangerous (/s)
“...because Agenda 21 will ban the use of private cars and have us all packed into Willie Green bullet trains by the time the technology is perfected.”
Interesting comment. But I think the elite’s love affair with Agenda 21 items like light rail is mostly a coolness issue. Driverless cars will have a coolness factor with that crowd that will override any concerns that they would be neither green nor safe.
I can't decide whether that's the projectile from a spud-gun, or a new species of dinosaur.
Driverless cars will NEVER work for the very reason you're alluding to in your post: They can NEVER account for all the variables in human behavior, nor can the A.I. used by them adapt like the human brain to be able to react like a human being to avoid an accident.
Were that true, we would see ZERO accidents involving driverless vehicles either now, or in the very near future. The problem is driverless cars and A.I. are still created by human beings and we're flawed. We do not have perfect logic, nor do we always react in logical ways.
The best A.I. will never be able to account for all the different combinations of reactions that we human beings are capable of producing and reacting to.
Never.
That has more to do with unions than technology.
The problem with the author's premise is that he holds "fail proof" and "flawless" as some kind of standard. Fact is people are not fail proof and flawless drivers. The automation need only exceed fallible humans, not meet some perfection standard. 10s of thousands of needless deaths can be avoided annually, nevermind hundreds of thousands of injuries.
There will still be accidents, just fewer of them due to careless people.
The short version of why I think he’s wrong is that:
a) I think government will grant blanket immunity from prosecution/lawsuits once the tech proves overall safer than human drivers, and
b) for the foreseeable future there’ll be a requirement for a human ready to take over. That avoids the “software that breaks the law” issue.
Driverless cars are coming faster than most people think. Cars are already incorporating driverless features. Various types of traction control and automated brake control are standard on many vehicles. The new Bentley can park itself - both parallel and diagonal.
I think the first truly driverless vehicles will be UPS and FedEx delivery trucks. With a robotic arm that drops the package near your front door.
They are not “driverless” cars. It says right there that the driver has to be ready to take over the driving in situations that the car can’t handle.
So they’re not “driverless” cars.
The guy is mostly right, except for “driverless” trucks. That will not happen.
The software in a “driverless” car will be no help against a carjacking. No help if your car is surrounded by a band of street savages trying to break in and hurt, kill or rape you.
The braking system will not distinguish between a bag blowing in the wind, a rabbit, a doll, a dog, and a child. The human driver will brake differently for different things. Specifically, he will brake for the dog and the child, and ignore the others.
The real goal in all this is complete government control of what’s on the roads. The statists hate it when you have any freedom to do what you want. This would make everyone the same behind the wheel.
Automated vehicles could actually facilitate sharing services. Imagine living in a city and subscribing to BMW's car service. You hit a button on your phone and summon a car within minutes. The manufacturers are already looking into models like this.
Don't think of vehicle automation as a one size fits all solution. It is going to allow for even more niches.
Not really.
Wilton Knight’s molecular bonded shell is too pricey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.